saada project overview

Project Summary

SAADAStrategic Alliance for Agricultural

Development in Africa

p Cover photo: Farmers going home after a day harvesting manioc (cassava).

u Participantsatafieldvisittoapineapplefarmshowing the impact of K2SO4fertilizer.

Table of ContentsPart I. SAADA A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Project Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Goal, Objectives and Expected Outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Key Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Activities Conducted per Key Operational Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Project Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Strategic Planning and Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Agricultural Cluster Formation and Value Chain Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Capacity Development for the Promotion of the CASE Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Development of Capacity in Cross-Cutting Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52Collaboration with Other Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

Part II. SAADA B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

Key Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 Activities Conducted per Key Operational Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Market Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65Promotion of Urea Deep Placement in West Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69Fertilizer Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74Improving Fertilizer Use Efficiency in Cassava-Based Cropping

Systems in West Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79Support to CATALIST Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83Human-Urban Waste Recycling Into Fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

Part III. SAADA C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 Key Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Annex 1 . Partnership Brief with WFP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99Annex 2 . Examples of Significant Outcomes and Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Annex 3 . Acronyms & Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

SAADA Project Summary

1

SAADA A Project OverviewBackground The Directorate-General for International Cooperation of the Netherlands (DGIS), in consideration of an application for a strategic alliance with international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), awarded the International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) a grant for the implementation of the Strategic Alliance for Agricultural Development in Africa (SAADA) project . The grant covered the period from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2010, with an extension to April 30, 2011 .

Building an effective agricultural sector requires simultaneous efforts in many interlinked elements . The SAADA grant was developed to enable IFDC to use proven techniques to develop competitive rural agricultural systems and viable agro-enterprises, based on sustainable intensification of agricultural production and commodity chain development . To maximize the impact of SAADA, IFDC proposed a three-pronged program:

u Part A: IFDC designed a project to scale-up the Competitive Agricultural Systems and Enterprises (CASE) approach in West Africa to take advantage of the solid foundation and opportunity to transform rural livelihoods . Called ‘From Thousands to Millions: Accelerating Sustainable Agricultural Intensification and Economic Growth in West Africa’ (1000s+), the project sought to increase economic growth and agricultural productivity, thus improving food security and rural welfare . The 1000s+ project was prepared after an external review of the Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)/CASE projects, financed by the U .S . Agency for International Development (USAID) and the International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA) .

u Part B: IFDC proposed to expand and replicate the CASE approach to other critical areas of Africa, such as Central Africa’s Great Lakes Region (CAGLR) .

2


pAfarmerpresentstheresultsofISFMexercises.

u Part C: IFDC proposed to expand its experience and add new thematic elements to provide special focus on women and trade capacity building, and to meet the declining conditions facing African rural populations from increased environmental degradation, spread of HIV/AIDS, conflict and poor governance, all of which reduce or inhibit the capacity to improve agricultural productivity .

Overall, the proposal sought to accelerate the implementation of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) of the African Union/New Partnership for Africa’s Development (AU/NEPAD) and to contribute to the target of six percent annual growth in agricultural productivity . The project was also designed to provide measurable results in response to Millennium Development Goals 1 (eradication of extreme poverty and hunger), 3 (promotion of gender equity and empowerment of women), 6 (combat HIV/AIDS) and 7 (ensure environmental sustainability), with an indirect contribution to goal 4 (reduce child mortality) .


3

pFarmersproudlyshowtheresultsoftheircassavaharvest,comparingdifferentfertilizerapplications.

GoalThe project goal was to improve rural livelihoods and food security in West Africa, through the development of competitive rural agricultural systems and viable agro-enterprises, based on sustainable intensification of agricultural production and commodity chain development .

ObjectivesThe project objectives were:

1. To facilitate and coordinate agribusiness systems for improved profitability and productivity at the local, sub-national, national and international levels by:

uStrengthening competitiveness of agricultural systems in the selected target areas through diversification and development of ‘niche’ commodities .

uImproving the use and efficiency of external inputs (seeds, fertilizers, crop protection products [CPPs]) in the production of key marketable commodities .

uIncreasing coordination between producers and final markets .

uStrengthening linkages among farmers, local entrepreneurs and credit and savings institutions, including development of the warehouse receipts system (also known as the inventory credit system and/or warrantage) .

uEnabling farmers and local entrepreneurs, both men and women, to advocate for themselves, to fight corruption and trade and business cartels, and insist on sound and conducive market regulations and protection of their rights .

uIntegrating and linking these project activities to other projects and programs within the region .

2. To strengthen the capacities of the diverse actors involved in agricultural production, processing and trade in West Africa . Specifically, capacities of the following actors would be strengthened:

uCapacities of one million farming families (involving 10 million people) and 2,000 local entrepreneurs in selected areas of the target countries to innovate and to profit from market opportunities and to facilitate agricultural intensification processes in the selected target areas .

uCapacities of local enterprises to engage in input distribution, processing, storage and marketing of agricultural products .

3. To integrate and advance work on three important cross-cutting issues:

uHIV/AIDS

uGender

uEnvironment

Goal, Objectives and Expected Outputs

4


Expected OutputsExpected outputs of the project were:

uAn average increase of 50 percent in agricultural productivity and a 30 percent average increase in income growth for one million rural farm households .

uMeasurable increases in environmentally sustainable production on an additional two million hectares (ha) of farm land .

uImproved food security through an increase in aggregated agricultural productivity of 500,000 metric tons (mt) of cereal equivalents .

uFarmers more effectively served by private service providers . The 2,000 project beneficiary dealers, traders, processors and others were expected in turn to increase their business by an estimated 50 percent and to expand the number of retail and other enterprises and employees by another 50 percent .

uIncreased institutional capacities of producer organizations, agro-entrepreneurs, credit and business service providers, trade associations and research institutes .

The project was designed to use CASE, a proven method for agricultural development for resource-poor farmers in Africa (see Figure 1) . Three well-known elements are included in the CASE solution: (1) ISFM, which consists of the judicious use of mineral fertilizers combined with locally available organic amendments to increase soil productivity and to maintain or enhance soil fertility – thus improving the quality of the environment; (2) Agribusiness cluster formation, which aims to strengthen the competencies of and linkages among the principal stakeholders (i .e ., farmers, entrepreneurs involved in the production and distribution of inputs and processing, storage and marketing of agricultural products and business development and financial services providers) at the grassroots; and (3) Development and strengthening of commodity chains, by improving efficiency of markets and coordination among the agribusiness clusters and national and international markets . The text box provides the project evaluators1 opinion of CASE . The project also proposed to integrate three cross-cutting issues in production and commodity chain activities: HIV/AIDS, gender and environment .

1 Alidou,M.,M.Lem,T.Schrader,F.deZeeuw.2010.LocalEntrepreneurship,AgribusinessClusterFormationandtheDevelopmentofCompetitiveValueChains.EvaluationoftheStrategicAllianceforAgriculturalDevelopmentinAfrica(SAADAprogram)2006-2009,Berenschot,WageningenUR.

Conclusion of the evaluators on the CASE approachThe CASE approach is widely considered as a relevant and effective instrument to promote commodity value chain development. Business-oriented collaboration between different actors is a key condition for agribusiness development. This is what the CASE approach is about.

The quantity of new links established and relations reinforced by 1000s+ is impressive. There is great potential for outscaling within farmer unions and federations.

There is a need to further extend the knowledge about the approach, which is still confined to those directly involved in project- facilitated cluster development processes.

Considering its relevance for addressing challenges for sustainable agricultural development in Africa, the real challenge lies in making the approach to work, in all its virtues.

M.Alidouetal.,pgs.21and23

Approach

““


5

Figure 1. Diagram of the CASE Approach

6


Context The 1000s+ project was implemented during a period relatively promising for agriculture in the region . Indeed, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine (UEMOA) and most governments of the target countries developed new policies for agriculture aiming at increased food production and food security . Investments in the agricultural sector increased in a tentative manner to meet the agreed CAADP target of 10 percent of the national budget allocated to agriculture . New policies promoted private sector involvement, public-private partnerships and investments . Increasing demand for agricultural products on national, regional and international markets led to rising prices (including at the farm gate) .

Unfortunately, during the same period, fertilizer prices substantially increased as well . Many governments, squeezed between demands from farmers for agricultural input subsidies and demands from consumers for cheaper food, opted for market interventions that sometimes led to a setback in the development of competitive agricultural systems at the grassroots level (cheap imports, state involvement in input distribution and cereal trade, cereal export bans, price restrictions in urban markets, etc .) .

In addition, many general constraints for a smooth agribusiness development continued – farmers’ low literacy levels, ongoing environmental degradation, poor rural infrastructures for trade and transport, limited access to credit, road harassment and policy trade barriers, etc .

Overall, the combination of promising developments, constraints and setbacks caused the project to operate in a challenging environment in which the critical question remained: “How to grasp the opportunities while dealing with the constraints?”


7

pPresentationofISFMresultsataruralworkshop.

Key AccomplishmentsThis overview includes observations and conclusions from the external evaluation of the project, which was conducted by the Berenschot consultancy and the Agricultural University of Wageningen in 2010, under the overall supervision of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs . SAADA key accomplishments from 2006 to 2011 are highlighted in this chapter, while the following chapters describe key activities conducted during the life of the project .

uAbout 425,000 farm families were brought into contact with other stakeholders in agribusiness clusters to progressively orient their production toward market demands .

uProjects involved farmers who managed to increase their yields of selected crops between 30 and 60 percent .

uSAADA farmers increased their revenue from targeted crops by 20 to 200 percent .

uAbout 230,000 ha were put under more sustainable agricultural practices .

uDuring the project, involved farmers produced an additional 1,340,000 mt of cereal equivalents (compared to their production before project intervention) .

uOver 1,500 (mainly rural) entrepreneurs participated in the project and managed to substantially increase their sales and net revenue .

uBetween 120,000 and 140,000 people (about 35,000 unique persons) benefited from capacity- strengthening programs, of which 36 percent were women . Farmers were the main beneficiaries, but professional organizations, processors and business support services (BSSs) also profited .

uKnowledge of cluster actors regarding good agricultural practices and use of appropriate agricultural inputs increased significantly .

uMany new technologies were introduced by the program and adopted by cluster actors in production, processing and breeding .

uCapacity-strengthening services delivered by the project contributed toward making farmer- based organizations (FBOs) more effective in service delivery to their members .

uFarmers are increasingly served by private business service providers . Many business links were established or reinforced at cluster level .

uThe CASE solution is now widely considered as a relevant and effective instrument to promote commodity value chain development . Important spin-off effects were recorded .

8


pFarmerslearntoestablishcontourlinestofighterosionduringanISFMtrainingsessioninBadou,Togo.

Activities Conducted per Key Operational AreaOperations were organized in six Key Operational Areas:

1 . Project Management2 . Strategic Planning and Guidance3 . Agricultural Cluster Formation and Value Chain Development4 . Capacity Development for the Promotion of the CASE Solution5 . Development of Capacity in Cross-Cutting Issues6 . Monitoring of Performances and Evaluation of Effects and Impacts

Project ManagementStaffingThe project employed the limited staff strategy . Limited staff at the project level would work mainly through contracted BSS providers with actors in the agribusiness clusters (see text box) .

Over the course of the project, with increasing numbers of accompanied agribusiness clusters, the staff team was strengthened with some additional thematic specialists and a (junior) staff member per intervention country, bringing the original technical staff of six up to 20 by the end of the project . Administrative and support staff, partly shared with other IFDC projects, remained limited .

Thanks to financing from Agriterra, partnering FBOs in each target country were able to recruit a full-time national advisor to farmers’ economic initiatives (NAFEI) who developed direct working relations with the IFDC country teams .

The project proved to be an excellent training ground in value chain development; therefore surrounding institutions were often eager to take our staff during recruitments, and the project had to deal with numerous staff departures .

StructureThe project set-up was a small technical and administrative coordination unit including some thematic specialists on cross-cutting themes and monitoring and evaluation (M&E), one technical staff and about the equivalent of one-half of an administrative staff person per intervention country .

Figure 2 shows the organizational chart during the last years of the project .

Conclusion of the evaluators on the staffing approachRegarding the strategy for service delivery, IFDC has chosen a challenging way of working through BSS rather than with own staff. This is a more sustainable way of working, which is found to be highly relevant.

M.Alidouetal.,Ibid.,pg.13


9

Figure 2. Organigram of the 1000s+ Staff in 2010

10


Strategic Planning and Guidance

“Farmers in the driving seat select the best opportunities for connections between producers and markets .” This methodology was used to establish national steering committees (NSCs) in each of the intervention countries . The NSCs were led by the respective national platforms of FBOs and/or producers’ organizations (POs), and by a regional advisory committee (RAC), led by the regional platform of farmers – Réseau des Organisations Paysannes et des Producteurs Agricoles de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (ROPPA) .2

National Steering CommitteesIn addition to the FBO/PO platforms, other members of the NSCs were representatives of organized national interest groups (processors, agro-dealers, NGOs) and representatives of agricultural research, agricultural extension and ministries of agriculture . Notwithstanding a slow start (related to limited funding), the NSCs developed their own plans . Each plan was country-specific, and included task descriptions and decision-making on membership (mostly eight to 12 members; see also the opinion of the project evaluators in the text box on the next page) .

Typical actions of the NSCs were guidance in the selection of geographic intervention areas and what types of produce to grow . A primary task was the actual selection of proposed business ideas and action plans contributing to their own knowledge and experience . Most NSCs claimed a role in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of agribusiness cluster development and action plan implementation, although they were limited by financial resources .

The supposition that NSC members would use the knowledge of, and experience gained through CASE, and then promote this approach within their own organizations was difficult to verify . No specific actions or results have been reported . It is only at the FBO level that their direct involvement led to increased attention for economic activities (through cooperatives and commodity-based organizations) .

Regional Advisory CommitteeRAC was established during the official launching of the Agriterra-ROPPA-IFDC collaboration in September 2008 (and led by ROPPA) . DGIS opted for the role of observer . This narrow membership limited the RAC’s added value to the project . The committee meetings remained gatherings of the three partners involved in implementation . Further handicapped by an insufficient level of representation, there was a bias toward discussion of implementation issues and not toward strategic thinking and orientation .3 The meetings did, however, contribute to increased mutual understanding .

2 The“farmerinthedrivingseat”concepthasalsoledtoagribusinessclustersinitiatedmainlybyFBOsseekingamarketfortheirproduce.Itwasonlyquitelateintheprojectcyclethatotherentrypointswereexperimentedwith(initiatedprimarilybyprocessorsseekingareliablesupplyofrawmaterials).

3 AnexceptionwasthemeetinginArnheminJanuary2010wheretheend-of-projectevaluationandfutureorientationwerediscussed.DGISparticipatedinthismeeting.AgriterrawasrepresentedbyitsDirector,ROPPAbyitsPresidentandIFDCbytheDirectoroftheNorthandWestAfricaDivision(NWAFD).


11

Project activities began quickly because 1000s+ built on the foundation created by its predecessor, the ISFM project . Partners and communities that participated in the ISFM project were contacted and asked to renew their partnerships in order to implement CASE as part of the 1000s+ project . Table 1 on the next page indicates the number of clusters formed each year .

Dynamics in National Steering Committees, according to project evaluatorsIn Ghana, early 2009, conflicts occurred in the NSC on interests, leadership, financial issues. The situation was managed by the reinstitution of the Chairman and the replacement of the PO Advisor (NAFEI) in the mandated farmer organization. The steering committee is now structurally referred to as the ‘Farmer-led National Steering Committee’.

In Mali, the NSC only became operational in early 2009. For years, CNOP and AOPP could not come to an agreement on the division of tasks and responsibilities. Field visits and recent CASE training of NSC members have had important positive effects.

In Burkina Faso, the NSC has been operational as from 2006-7. The IFDC agribusiness advisor has played an important facilitating role. At the farmers’ side, FEPA-B (mandated PO) takes the lead. The role of the platform (CPF) is not very clear. There are no tensions like in Mali because the FEPA-B president is also the CPF president.

In Niger, the Farmers’ Platform dominates the NSC. Some other groups actively participate as well, but the private sector (input dealers, traders, processors) is largely absent.

In Nigeria, the National Farmer Platform AFAN became a member of the NSC in 2008, upon request by Agriterra. AFAN is the only farmer organization in the NSC and provides the vice president. The commitment of the Nigerian NSC members to 1000s+ is reportedly very high.

In Togo, the NSC is effectively playing its role since 2007. In Benin, this is the case since 2008. In both countries, farmer organizations (members of the National Farmers’ Platforms) are well represented as compared to other stakeholders. In Togo, a consumers’ and a processing association are members of the NSC.


Agricultural Cluster Formation and Value Chain Development

Increase in the Number of Clusters from 2006 to 2010


13

t Farmerscollaboratetofillindetailonthetransect diagram of theirfarmland.

Table 1. New (and total, in brackets) Clusters Per Country by the End of Each Year

Country 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Benin 6 (6) 2 (8) 13 (21) 14 (35) 0 (35)

Burkina Faso 4 (4) 11 (15) 9 (24) 18 (42) -2 (40)

Ghana 2 (2) 5 (7) 5 (12) 3 (15) -2 (13)

Mali 3 (3) 9 (12) 22 (34) 6 (40) 10 (50)

Niger 5 (5) 1 (6) 10 (16) 16 (32) 0 (32)

Nigeria 3 (3) 2 (5) 5 (10) 15 (25) 1 (26)

Togo 6 (6) 2 (8) 7 (15) 12 (27) 0 (27)

Total 29 (29) 32 (61) 71 (132) 84 (216) -3 (223)

Cluster formation activities began in mid-2006 with the progressive recruitment of cluster advisors to coordinate activities in the seven intervention countries . During this first year of the project, actors were mobilized for the formation of 28 clusters .

In 2007, with the experience gained from the previous year, 36 new clusters were added, for a total of 64 . The increase did not occur at the same rate in the countries – Burkina Faso, Ghana and Mali added 12, 5 and 10 clusters, respectively while Togo, Benin, Niger and Nigeria added only two clusters each . This difference in rates of growth was due primarily to the availability of trusted and competent BSS providers to guide the process .

In 2008 there were more additions in clusters, generating a total of 133 by the end of the year . A cluster advisor was recruited to take charge of Niger .

In 2009, the project entered into a co-financing agreement with Agriterra . This gave the impetus to support the formation of 88 additional clusters, taking the total to 221 clusters . That year, about 15 clusters were added in each country (the exceptions were Ghana and Mali) . The number of clusters in Mali had passed 40 by the end of 2008 so it was decided to concentrate on the quality of inter-relationships between cluster actors rather than on simply adding more clusters . Ghana had the lowest number of clusters (see Figure 3) and increasing the number of clusters was hindered by staff turnover and slow establishment of working relationships with reliable BSSs to accompany the process on the ground . In addition, confusion about roles and responsibilities of FBOs and the NSC persisted while other projects embarked on similar activities . It is also worth noting that in 2009, two clusters in Ghana and

one in Burkina Faso did not submit action plans to the project, thus reducing the number of active clusters to 218 . This was due to the inactivity of the BSS leading the cluster-building process .

14


pJarsofprocessedpepperproducedbyAgrocomplex,amemberofasuccessfulpepperagribusinesscluster.

Figure 3. Number of Clusters Per Country, 2006-2010

In 2010 new agribusiness clusters were started only in Mali . The main reasons for this were: it was the final year of the project and experience showed that a single year was not enough time to form a cluster and nurture it to maturity; Agriterra had withdrawn its financial support of cluster development plans, which reduced the average available budget per cluster supported by the 1000s+ project; and the project staff were fully mobilized in preparation for the external evaluation of the project requested by the donor . In Mali, however, 10 new clusters were added through the support of an additional project (Développement Economique à la Base par les Pôles d’Entreprises Agricoles - DEBPEA) funded by the Dutch Embassy in Mali . At the end of the project, a total of 225 active clusters were operational in the seven countries .

Over the course of the project, six clusters that had operated for a year or two dropped out of the process . In almost all the cases, it was the BSS that did not adhere to its commitment . These experiences have been reviewed and analyzed by the project staff and cluster actors to develop evaluation tools for current and future BSS . These tools will be used during the transitional period of 2011 and made available to the 2SCALE project .

Most countries opted not to concentrate the clusters but to spread them out across the country . In Burkina Faso, clusters were located in 23 of the 45 provinces in 12 of the 13 regions . In Benin, clusters were located in 11 of the country’s 12 regions (leaving out only the coastal region around Cotonou) . In Mali, the activities took place in 20 cercles in four of eight regions . There were activities in all eight regions of Niger and in Togo 26 out of 35 préfectures were involved in all five regions of the country . Ghana had cluster activities in six regions of the country’s 10 regions . In Nigeria, the project worked in the northern part of the country (in Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano and Katsina States) . This decision was made because of the size of this vast country and to reduce travel time from cluster to cluster .

While the decision to distribute clusters widely (a decision made primarily by NSCs) increased project costs for cluster support, it also contributed to widespread information about and support for CASE . 2SCALE should profit from these decisions .

Selection of CommoditiesThe project leadership made a deliberate choice not to pre-select specific commodities for agribusiness clusters and therefore limit them arbitrarily . Rather, 1000s+ supported promising business ideas from the grassroots . As a consequence, there was a large variety of commodities grown by the clusters . As the project

Geographical Coverage of Clusters in the Countries


15

began in 2006 there were already 12 commodities covered . Maize was grown by more clusters than any other commodity (eight clusters, or 29 percent – see Figure 4) . Soybeans and groundnuts were each grown by three clusters . Cowpeas, tomatoes, cassava, sorghum and rice were each grown by two clusters . Crops grown by a single cluster each were peppers and small ruminants (Ghana), oil palm (Benin) and finger millet in Niger .

By project end, the clusters covered 33 different commodities comprised of crops, livestock, dairy products, honey, feed and seed . This diversity of commodities illustrates one of the strengths of the project . The actors proposed their own business ideas, and thus selected for themselves commodities to improve their respective businesses . The diversity was equally beneficial for the project, allowing staff members to study and learn how CASE is applicable to a wide range of agricultural commodities .

In 2007, 10 new commodities were included in the cluster-building processes: fonio, pineapple, Irish potatoes, tiger-nuts, yams, mangoes, sesame, seeds, fish and cattle . These additions and the attention given to them in the different countries changed the order of importance of the existing 22 commodities . The most important are shown in Figure 4 . Maize continued to be the most widely grown crop, rice the second-most widely grown (nearly 13 percent of the existing clusters) . Maize and rice were followed by soybeans and the newly introduced sesame, each being grown by eight percent of the clusters . All livestock (fish, small and large ruminants) grouped together also were grown by eight percent of the clusters . Groundnuts, which ranked second in the previous year, were relegated to the sixth position (not appearing in the figure on the next page) .

Figure 4. Main Commodities of Clusters Supported in the Seven Target Countries, 2006-2009

Ten new commodities were introduced into the process in 2008, including feed, milk, shea butter, honey, ginger and cashews . This again restructured the order of importance of the commodities in the cluster-building process in the region . The 2008 food crisis caused the countries to focus on growing more rice to feed their populations, and the commodity became important for the agribusiness clusters as well . The number of clusters built around rice increased to about 14 percent of the total in 2008 . Rice was followed by maize and soybeans (and groundnuts re-emerged among the five most important commodities) .

16


In 2009, cluster-building activities continued with the assistance of additional financial support from Agriterra . Although new clusters came into existence, very few new commodities were introduced . Those introduced were for specific niche markets, and included lemon grass in Burkina Faso, spirulina (a blue-green algae) in Niger and moringa in Togo . The order of importance of the commodities did not change as much in 2009 when compared with the previous year . Rice (13 percent) and maize (11 percent) were still the primary commodities grown by the clusters . Fish and cattle combined, soybeans, groundnuts and sesame were each grown by about seven percent of existing clusters .

With the advent of the DEBPEA project, three new commodities were introduced in Mali in 2010 – bananas, roselle fiber and petals . As expected there was no major change in the order of importance of commodities covered by the clusters in the sub-region from the previous year because fewer commodities were added . Figure 5 shows the order for 12 commodity groups in 2010 . The six main commodities over the years (rice, maize, soybeans, sesame, fish/cattle and groundnuts) are followed by six other equally important commodities (cowpeas, millet/sorghum, cassava, onions, honey/shea butter and milk/eggs) .

Figure 5. Main Commodities of Clusters Supported in 2010 in the Seven Target Countries

Rice, maize and soybeans dominated because of the ready market for these commodities . Rice and maize are staples in every household in West Africa while soybeans are an ‘industrial crop’ for oil mills and feed producers .


17

pWomenproducingaklui,madefromgroundmaizeandusedtomakeapopularbreakfastporridge.

Financing Cluster Activities Through Action PlansDuring the implementation of 1000s+, a large percentage of project funds was used as grants for cluster-building activities . As stated above, the project opted for limited staffing from its onset . This created conditions for national and local actors to master and ‘own’ the process through their active participation . These actors (FBOs and POs, state technical support service providers, local NGOs and local consultancy firms) led the planning of cluster action plans and the implementation of activities that were funded by project grants .

The amounts disbursed differed from country to country due to the difference in the number of clusters and activities over the years . Benin, Burkina Faso and Mali disbursed more money than other target countries because those countries had the greatest number of clusters (Table 2) .

Total funding for all cluster activities budgeted for in their respective action plans was about 4 .6 million Euros .

Table 2. Amount Disbursed by the Project for Cluster Action Plans from 2006 to 2010 (in Euros)

Country 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

Benin 46,665 61,967 222,819 352,964 139,001 823,415

Burkina Faso 22,536 76,350 255,165 482,689 195,433 1,032,172

Ghana 16,461 39,484 248,504 99,060 59,092 462,602

Mali 37,299 99,673 259,795 398,896 0 795,664

Niger 37,655 17,277 134,449 265,383 146,301 601,065

Nigeria 0 10,314 64,862 189,384 31,512 296,072

Togo 60,851 56,831 146,653 233,262 108,730 606,328

Total 221,467 361,896 1,332,247 2,021,638 680,069 4,617,318

The financial contribution of cluster actors themselves to cluster-building activities was not as large as expected . However, there were significant efforts worth noting:

uIn Togo the total contribution of 85 million FCFA over five years was 10 to 30 percent of the annual total grant . The amount contributed by actors doubled between 2009 and 2010 .

uIn Benin, the contribution of actors began in 2008 with about 13 percent of the grants given to the clusters; it fell in 2009 to nine percent and rose again in 2010 to about 15 percent . The total amount mobilized by actors was about 55 million FCFA .

uIn Mali the contribution ranged between 13 percent in 2008 to seven percent in 2010 . Cluster actors were able to supplement their grants with a total amount of about 72 million FCFA .

uIn Niger and Burkina Faso there were no significant contributions from actors .

If the amount spent in financing action plans in each country is divided by the number of farm households involved in the cluster-building process, Benin and Togo consistently had the lowest expenditure on a per household basis among the seven countries (Figure 6) . The expenditure per household in these two countries varied from 800 to 2,000 FCFA (€ 1 .2 to 3) and from 1,000 to 4,000 FCFA (€ 1 .5 to 6), respectively over the five-year period . Nigeria and Niger had the highest expenditure per farm household involved in cluster-building activities .

18


Figure 6. Average Cost (in FCFA) of Cluster Action Plans Per Farm Household by Country, 2006-2010

Average expenditures per involved household per year varied between US $32 (in 2006) and $9 (in 2010) . For a five-year period – the estimated time needed to move a farmer into market-oriented behavior – total investment per household remained below $100 .

The project staff attached great importance to building synergies with other partners (both technical and financial) during implementation of 1000s+ . This was specifically expressed during CASE dissemination . The actors were empowered to mobilize resources from other partners to develop relevant activities . The project staff had envisaged an intermediate result of facilitating access to information by other stakeholders in the targeted zones to attain certain objectives of the CASE approach . The following may be noted as examples of such achievements:

uIn Mali, co-financing of the project activities went from 24 million FCFA to about 250 million FCFA from 2006 to 2010; it is also one of the two countries that obtained complementary financing from the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands within the framework of the DEBPEA project .

uIn Benin, about 240 million FCFA were mobilized by the cluster actors from 2006 to 2010, and IFDC used the relevant experiences from the CASE approach to attract more projects to Benin (Projet Coton and Projet Intrants non Coton) .

uIn Burkina Faso, about 170 million FCFA were raised by cluster actors as a co-financing package for the cluster-building activities initiated by 1000s+ .

uIn Ghana, Niger and Togo, co-financing was almost non-existent, but there were instances where cluster actors benefited directly and indirectly from technical and financial support from partners leveraging the 1000s+ project . In Ghana, the German agency Gesellschaft Für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) supported actors of the pepper cluster who were downstream of the producers; maize and poultry farmers in Togo benefited from financial intermediation from the Banque Régionale de Solidarité (BRS) to promote their interrelationship on the value chain; and in Niger, NGOs brokered loan agreements for farmers to acquire agro-inputs .


19

uIn Nigeria, local governments co-financed some activities through subsidies in order to purchase fertilizer and equipment, and paid for participants to attend training sessions . Other projects also leveraged the efforts of 1000s+ . For example, the Sabzuro Ginger Farmers Cooperative Society and Yeyock Sabzuro Women Multipurpose Cooperative Society were grantees of $100,000 each from the U .S . African Development Foundation (USADF) .

The amount of co-financing raised by cluster actors is estimated to be about 5 billion FCFA (7 .6 million Euros), approaching the total amount received from DGIS for the project .

Conclusion of the evaluators on project efficiencyThe costs per farmer were 26 Euros, or $34 USD for the project period [period covered by the evaluation: 2006-2009]. Whereas the costs per farmer per year are relatively stable (between 8 and 11 Euros per year), the costs per cluster per year decrease over the years, with an exception in 2008. Steady costs per farmer in combination with decreasing costs per cluster indicate an increase in membership in the clusters.

In short, the program is considered efficient. The realized average costs per farmer for the program period ($34 USD for reaching 373,000 households) are lower than in previous projects, as targeted. (…) Considering the realized additional production, income growth for farmers and reduced soil depletion, it is found that the benefits of the program outweigh its costs.


20


pThemainofficeoftheassociationofwomenriceparboilersinBama,BurkinaFaso..

Loans Received by Cluster Actor Per Country, 2006-2010

Financial institutions are vital actors in the development of value chains and agribusiness clusters . Access to loans is crucial for the cluster actors to operate effectively . Some actors managed to get loans through the support of the BSS or the project’s rural finance specialist . Access to loans was particularly more significant in three of the seven countries and the figures increased from year to year (Table 3) .

Table 3. Loans Received by Cluster Actors Per Country in FCFA (or FCFA Equivalent in the Case of Ghana), 2006-2010

Cluster 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Ghana 0 8,160,000 47,758,800 56,973,000 86,841,600

Togo 244,956,450 524,722,820 803,594,630 1,597,668,614 1,689,734,300

Mali 0 83,870,000 86,196,250 425,654,500 385,928,500

Facilitating access to credit was possible through a combination of actions:

uLinking various actors to financial institutions .

uStrengthening their capacity to negotiate through preparation of operating cost accounts and development of business plans .

uSigning of partnership agreements between IFDC and financial institutions (notably BRS and the Banque Nationale de Développement Agricole in the case of Togo and Mali, respectively) .

uStrengthening the capacity of staff of financial institutions in specific aspects of the agricultural sector to promote their sound analysis of loan requests and timing of disbursements .

uBoosting the productivity of farmers to enable them to contribute significantly to savings and credit schemes (as was the case mainly in Ghana) .

uPromotion of the warehouse receipt system (warrantage) .

Expenditure of Funds in Action PlansBecause POs were the principal entry point of most of the clusters, this may have contributed to the trend highlighted in Figure 7, in which most activities were directed first at building capacities of their members (Intermediate Result IR4) and technology development and transfer (IR1) before linking them to the other actors through institutional arrangements and market strategies . In 2SCALE IFDC will pay increased attention to the other actors, moving them up the stages of the theory of change developed for their transformation .


21

Loans Received by Cluster Actor Per Country, 2006-2010

Figure 7. Percentage of Budget Allocated to Activities Under Different Intermediate Results, 2008-10

IR 1 � � � � Various technologies aimed at improving efficiency of fertilizer usage, livestock farming, storage, processing and handling have been developed with the effective participation of actors�

IR 2 � � � � Institutional arrangements and marketing strategies that can facilitate agricultural intensification have been identified with effective participation of main actors�

IR 3 � � � � Rural learning centers are created in many villages in the pilot zone through an increase in learning trials (plots) and the development of favorable conditions for farmers’ access to inputs/credit/information/output markets�

22


pMembersofawomen’sassociationsetupanewsolarenergydryingunittoprocessfreshtomatoesintodriedtomatoes.

IR 4 � � � � Capacities of farmers and their organizations are further strengthened to:• Generateanddisseminateinformation.• Developsustainablelinkageswithcredit/information/inputandoutputmarketsinandoutsidethepilotzone.

IR 5 � � � � The capacities of local entrepreneurs (agro-dealers, traders, processors, cooperatives, etc�) are strengthened to:• Provideinformationandgoodquality,sufficientandtimelyinputstoproducers.• Store,transport,processandsellagriculturalproductstoconsumers.

IR 6 � � � � The capacity of GO/NGOs working in the target region is strengthened to facilitate agricultural intensification and market development through the CASE approach�

IR 7 � � � � All stakeholders in the target region are informed about the approaches and strategies to facilitate agricultural intensification based on CASE and are gradually involved in the dissemination of validated technologies and institutional arrangements�

IR 8 � � � � The capacities of non-local importers/wholesalers and retailers are strengthened to provide information and good quality, sufficient and timely inputs to cluster level agro-dealers/retailers and farmer cooperatives�

IR 9 � � � � The capacities of non-local processors and traders (wholesalers) are strengthened to provide timely and sufficient order of gross or semi-processed produce from cluster level actors�

IR 10 � � � Transactional governance capacities for agribusiness at local, national and /or international levels have been improved�

Changes in Types and Numbers of BSSWhen the project began, most of the service providers belonged to the category of local NGOs or were governmental technical organizations – research institutes and extension services (Figure 8) .

Figure 8. Typology and Percentage of BSS Involved in Cluster Activities in 2010

BSS were mostly partners of the ISFM project that preceded the 1000s+ project . As the implementation of the project progressed, the service providers that came on board were from diverse backgrounds . Consultancy firms and FBOs/POs joined to provide services towards cluster-building and their number progressively increased . In 2007, there were only 12 POs accompanying clusters but this figure increased seven-fold to 86 in 2010, overtaking the number of NGOs .

Cluster PerformanceCluster performance may be measured in terms of production increase, additional revenue for cluster actors, number and level of contractual arrangements between actors, mastering of planning processes, number of business plans developed and financed, level of realization of production plans, successes in influencing the general business environment, satisfaction of cluster actors, etc .


23

24


For several years, project staff concentrated primarily on establishing, developing and monitoring agribusiness clusters . In preparation for the end-of-project evaluation, a number of activities were undertaken to develop an integrated qualitative assessment tool . Clusters were classified accordingly, and cases were selected for more in-depth analyses by staff and consultants . The evaluation mission itself also developed a number of case studies .

Below are a number of highlights identified during these different efforts to learn more about cluster performance .

In Benin, cluster performance assessment showed an improvement in value addition and sales of commodities . Notably among them were oil palm and cashews . According to the analyses performed, the oil palm and cashew cluster actors earned additional revenues of 814 million and 6 .5 billion FCFA, respectively . The farmers received the largest share of this revenue .

In Burkina Faso, the financial aspects of the onion cluster of Korsimoro and the cattle-fattening cluster of Oubritenga were closely analyzed . The sales volume doubled in the cattle cluster while onion sales increased by 37 percent in Korsimoro .

In Mali, business volume of the actors in the potato cluster increased from 30 million FCFA in 2008 to 2 billion FCFA in 2010 . The cashew cluster’s business volumes increased from 196 million FCFA to 455 million FCFA for the same period .

In Togo, the analysis of product flows with clusters highlighted an increase in the cropping area for maize and soybeans (an average increase of 160 ha/year for maize and 170 ha/year for soybeans) and in yields . As an example, the added value per maize actor was:

uProduction of improved seeds – an increase from 6 .7 million FCFA in 2006 to 8 million FCFA in 2009 .

uMaize production – an increase from 729 million FCFA in 2006 to over 2 billion FCFA in 2009 .

uAnimal feed production – an increase from 6 million FCFA to about 21 .7 million FCFA in 2009 .

uWholesale trade – an increase from 254 million FCFA in 2006 to over 343 million FCFA in 2009 .

uRetail trade – an increase from 510 million FCFA in 2006 to over 1 .1 billion FCFA in 2009 .

uOverall added value of the maize cluster – an increase from 4 .2 billion in 2006 to over 6 .8 billion in 2009 .

Similar trends were observed for soybeans; the value added by producers increased from 5 million FCFA in 2006 to over 20 .6 million FCFA in 2009, and by Agrinova (a trading company) from 4 million FCFA in 2007 to 17 .5 million FCFA in 2009 .

Tomatoes, ginger, yams and rice are other commodity clusters in Togo that registered appreciable increases in income per hectare .

Similar trends were also recorded among farmers in the various clusters in Ghana, but with varying intensities . A significant increase in the gross income of farmers was recorded in the citrus cluster (increasing from 2,000 GHS in 2008 to 4,000 GHS in 2010) . Fonio was the crop with the least incremental growth in gross income in Ghana .

When the gross income accrued to farmers was indexed to that of the initial year in each cluster, for those selected in 2006, onions, millet, oil palm, cowpeas and tomatoes recorded the most significant increases


25

t Aposterillustratingtheconceptofclustersandvaluechains,basedonactualproducers’groups,products,businesspartnersandconsumers.

through 2010 . Cowpea and tomato clusters had some fluctuations but the others progressively increased . For the clusters selected in 2007, those with significant gross income increases for farmers were in the following descending order – peppers, pineapple, maize, sesame and yams . For those selected in 2008, the gross income increases for farmers were in the following descending order – ginger, rain-fed onions, maize, rice and sesame .

There were a number of diverse factors that contributed to the incremental increases in gross income among farmers . They include: the existence of technical and financial partners; increases in productivity following the use of agro-inputs; and improved access to markets and loans .

Capacity building is at the core of CASE . The 1000s+ project’s primary capacity building strategy was to train trainers and provide support to their organizations to conduct trainings (mainly for many more farmers, processors and other actors) . In 2006, the target group of the training program was mainly project staff and a few partners . The tempo and scope of training increased in 2007 to some BSS (Table 4) .

Table 4. Numbers of Training Programs Conducted Under the Project and Participants Per Year

Year Training Programs held Total Participants Women Participants

2006 1 22 5

2007 3 94 19

2008 378 23,498 12,273

2009 576 157,743 63,247

2010 564 152,045 55,825

The number of training programs peaked in 2009 and almost stayed at that level during the final year of the project . Through this capacity building and its multiplier effect, the project reached thousands of grassroots agribusiness actors, managers of development projects and local policy-makers . After building a critical mass of trainers among the BSS and empowering them to reach out with the knowledge and skills they acquired (and with financial support based on annual action plans), the number of trained persons increased almost seven-fold from 2008 to 2009 . Over the same period, the number of women reached increased by five-fold . These levels were almost maintained in 2010 despite it being the last year of the project .

The training topics covered diverse aspects that were related to CASE, as detailed next .

Capacity Development for the Promotion of the CASE Solution26


Training of CASE Trainers

CASE Training 2006-2008

When the project began there was the need to share the concepts of CASE with the BSS in all the target countries . Beginning in 2008 the project took advantage of the training and capacity building programs of International Centre for development-oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA), IFDC and Agriterra and best practices in the region to train trainers and develop cadres of CASE/cluster experts who could champion the approach at the (sub-)national level .

A series of CASE training programs were held . The conceptual framework of the CASE approach was explained using a mixture of techniques – presentations, brainstorming and quizzing with lead questions . Sub-modules were used as practical exercises to deepen the CASE knowledge base (concept, objectives, requirements, pillars and values) .

The list below indicates titles of some of the sub-modules developed and used in the CASE training:

uExperience-sharing among BSS

uDeveloping empowerment strategies

uUsing the Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats (SWOT) analysis to generate an action plan

uInstitutional scan of agribusiness clusters

uCluster actor mapping

uValue chain mapping and analysis

uIdentification of the key drivers and trends in a value chain

uUpgrading value chains

uValue stream analysis

uDetermination of centrality in agribusiness clusters

uDetermining the difference between traditional and modern markets

uAnalysis of the institutional environment and its influence on the market

uEconomic analysis of the value chain

Not all of the sub-modules listed above were used in every training session . The selection and number used depended on the target group . 1000s+ target groups were FBOs and POs, trader organizations, decision-makers, steering committees, business development service providers, agribusiness cluster actors, lecturers and students . Every target group did not need a full complement of CASE training . The depth of knowledge needed also changed from group to group .

The time it took to complete a sub-module also differed for each of them . The duration largely depended on the target group being trained . Those with field experience completed the training faster than those without field experience . Larger groups also took more time to complete than smaller groups because in larger groups more discussions took place before a decision was made . However, based on experience, 1000s+ staff allocated about 1 .5 hours for most of the modules .

A module on supply chain strategy development was developed and tested at the stakeholders’ conference on oilseed development in Ghana in September 2008 . It took at least two to three days to complete the six-stage module that ensures synchronization of chain actors’ activities .


27

In addition to these topics, other thematic specialists and resource people led the target groups through business plan development, market research, gender and value chain analysis as well as agricultural productivity issues .

Training of CASE Trainers

Learning from experiences with the National Capacity Strengthening Teams (NCSTs), IFDC selected and trained (with support from ICRA), 35 additional CASE trainers during an intensive training course in Ghana in August 2009 . These CASE trainers had additional responsibilities to train in their respective local languages . Among the 35 trainers were eight women .

The Training of Trainers (ToT) modules used included: a) an introductory presentation, with key issues to be addressed for three typical target groups relevant for agribusiness development; b) a set of sub-modules and outline for an introductory training on CASE that introduced the objectives and pillars of the approach, as well as brief background theory from management science and economics; and c) concepts and practices to enhance facilitation and training skills .

This training gave the future CASE trainers the capacity to design and implement their training programs tailored to the various target groups in their respective countries . This was evident from exercises designed to verify the level of understanding of the information presented to participants and how they wished to conceptualize an introductory training program on CASE for the target beneficiaries . Some of these target groups included producers, local entrepreneurs, financial institutions, steering committee members and BSS providers .

CASE Training 2009-2011

Most of the CASE trainers used the knowledge acquired to design and implement introductory training on CASE and were involved from September 2009 until the end of the project in 2011 . They helped to implement the post-training activity plan that each country team produced and discussed with the respective Cluster Advisors to form the basis of a follow-up program on the CASE ToT in each country . The 37 training sessions (Table 5) they organized made cluster actors more aware of their markets and their structure . The members of the steering committees also learned to coordinate their activities for the organizations they represent in order to benefit from interrelationships . Throughout the countries, participants are of the conviction after the training sessions that if they come together, they will gain together .

Table 5. Follow-up Training Conducted by Trained CASE Trainers from Sep� 2009 to Dec� 2010

Country Trainings Total Participants Men Women

Benin 4 102 92 10

Burkina Faso 8 200 166 34

Ghana 4 93 76 17

Mali 3 71 36 35

Niger 3 141 88 53

Nigeria 7 347 254 93

Togo 8 199 164 35

Total 37 1,153 876 277

28


More men received training on the CASE approach than women . While there were almost an equal number of men and women trained by the CASE trainers in Mali, the percentage of women ranged from 10 to 38 percent in the other countries .

National Capacity Strengthening Teams

As part of its capacity building efforts, project staff trained the NCSTs in intervention countries (NCSTs were eventually set up in four out of the seven countries in which the project operated) . Members of the NCSTs were trained to be able to build capacities of cluster members and steering committees in accessing markets and promoting competiveness of agricultural commodities .

The members of the NCSTs were selected from partner organizations providing technical and business services to the clusters . The idea was that by training staff of partner organizations in CASE, these persons would, in addition to capacity building of cluster actors, spread the CASE approach not only in their own organization but also within their broader professional networks, and thus contribute to innovations in rural development .

In 2006, the first group of 13 persons (eight from Benin and five from Mali [10 men and three women]) was sent to ICRA Montpellier to be trained as members of the NCST for their respective countries . A second team of six persons, all men from Ghana, was sent to ICRA Netherlands in 2007 for parallel training .

Meanwhile by 2008, most of the team members trained in 2006 for Mali and Benin were no longer available due to various reasons (job changes and others pursuing further studies) . So another four-person Malian team was trained by ICRA, together with the first six-person team from Burkina Faso . As a result of training between 2006 and 2008, NCSTs were operational in Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana and Mali .

Because of mixed experiences and no specific opportunities to call on the NCST members for project activities4, no further training of NCSTs was conducted, leaving Niger, Nigeria and Togo without NCSTs .

In 2009, ‘agribusiness coach’ courses were organized by ICRA in the Netherlands and France to deepen expertise in design, implementation and monitoring of agribusiness development . The project financed the participation of 11 selected members of the various NCSTs (often people attached to universities or other education-related organizations) and four others from the countries without the NCSTs .

The NCST members and the agribusiness coaches were equipped to provide support to cluster advisors and BSSs to guide cluster-building activities . Their main task was to facilitate the various cluster actors to take collective actions that were well-coordinated in order to create business opportunities among themselves . They also stimulated the cluster actors through learning cycles characterized by generating content of what they wanted to communicate among themselves and with the outside world (through the project) by 4 MostNCSTmemberswerenotreallyeffectiveintrainingand influencing.Someweretooseniorintheirorganizationsand thereforetoobusytodedicatetimetotraining;othersweretoo juniorandthereforewithoutsufficientinfluenceinsidetheir organizations;somesimplydidnothavetherightskillsorattitudes tobeatrainer.


29

sharing what they appreciated and what they would like to improve upon . This information was documented and has formed the basis for improved strategic directions in agribusiness cluster-building and value chain development .

Marketing

Several sessions of training on marketing were conducted for cluster actors in Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger and Togo . The focus was on strategies to capture a market, trade negotiation and contracting . Additional modules on quality certification and traceability were conducted . The actors trained were diverse . Some were interested in the development of a market intelligence system for their clusters and others were interested in the development of contract terms with agro-industries or traders within their country or in neighboring countries . The marketing units of the agro-dealers’ associations in Mali and Burkina Faso, and of the farmer apex body in Burkina Faso, also benefited from these training sessions .

There were ToT courses on the same themes (strategies to capture a market, trade negotiation and contracting) in the five Francophone

countries in which the project operated . In all, 73 trainers were trained (with 14 of them being women) . These trainers came

primarily from the BSS, although several were PO leaders .

Gender and Value Chain Development

Initially, training activities relating to gender focused on processors and food vendors . The aim was to improve hygiene, food preservation techniques and productivity in order to position them effectively within their respective value chains . There were a total of 60 training activities on the gender issues mentioned above, 44 of which were in support of women-owned enterprises in the different countries .

While part of the gender training targeted women’s groups involved in processing and women entrepreneurs, a great deal of effort was put into the development and field testing of a more general training tool on ‘gender and value chain development’ to explicitly bring gender aspects to the attention of all cluster actors .

Thematic Training (Marketing, Gender, ISFM, Rural Finance)

30


pProducersataruralworkshopparticipateinananimatedsketchtoreinforcetheconcepts presented during the training.

ISFMTo ensure land productivity in a sustained way the ISFM training sought to:

uImprove the use of organic and mineral fertilizers within the clusters .

uImprove nutrient-use efficiency through the training and participatory development of appropriate technological options addressing ISFM .

uContribute towards developing site-specific fertilizer recommendations for targeted crops through nutrient substitution trials conducted by the participatory learning and action research approach within the clusters .

By 2010, a total of 209 BSSs from the seven target countries were trained . There were 22 from Benin; 38 from Burkina Faso; 34 from Ghana; 31 from Mali; 30 from Niger; 32 from Nigeria; and 22 from Togo . In 2011, an additional 22 BSSs were trained in Mali . They received basic training to empower them to support POs to create and implement ISFM activity plans .

Rural Finance

The rural finance trainings were often organized in conjunction with marketing trainings . Trainings were organized in Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali and Togo . The main topic was business plan development .

Capacity Building of Cluster Actors by BSSRegarding capacity building programs in clusters, those organized directly by the 1000s+ staff came only as an addition to major training efforts within the framework of the agribusiness cluster formation and value chain development action plans . These capacity building efforts took different forms – study trips and exchange visits, classroom training sessions, field demonstrations, planning and evaluation workshops, etc . Themes of such programs included marketing, market studies, administrative and financial management, M&E, cost and profit calculation, contracting, negotiation techniques, lobbying, association building, agricultural practices, ISFM, seed production, hygiene in processing, processing techniques, management of cooperatives, etc .


31

pAparticipantpreparesachartatanISFMtraininginOuagadougou,BurkinaFaso.

The capacity building strategy of the project was appreciated by cluster stakeholders, but further improvements are possible, as pinpointed by the project’s external evaluators (see text box) .

On an ongoing basis, the staff adjusted the capacity building approach to ensure new skills were used within the agribusiness clusters . The main lessons learned include: (1) the optimal number of participants is between 10 and 15 persons per training session; (2) follow-up training sessions within the various countries are necessary on a regular basis; (3) the training modules for CASE ToT should include how to analyze value chains and cluster performance in detail; and (4) including as many women as possible in training programs is critical as women play important roles in most value chains .

It is important that CASE facilitators team up with those within their countries who have gone through some CASE training to develop and implement future training programs that include value chain analysis in their respective countries . The latter group can be used as resource persons in specialized areas such as: value chain; economic and market analyses; institutional scanning; upgrading of products, processes and functions of cluster actors; and others which they have been trained in . Similarly, those trained in Ghana in 2009 can guide those already trained in the various countries to develop training modules using the outline used at the workshop . The various BSSs and organizations the 1000s+ project worked with also have modules that can be used in further training on some thematic issues related to CASE .

At the same time, caution should be taken not to burden the CASE trainers with too much work as that will make them either deliver poor-quality training or become totally ineffective .

In general terms, the capacity building activities of the project were built into the partner BSS field activities; focus was placed on building competencies that promote cluster formation and value chain promotion . A major challenge for the future is to ensure that capacities built are not only at individual levels but

Conclusions of the Evaluators on Capacity Building Activities1000s+ has delivered effective and relevant capacity building services.

Between 2006 and 2009, about 120,000-140,000 people (around 35,000 unique persons) have been trained, of which 36 percent were women. Numerically, farmers were the main beneficiaries of the capacity building efforts (87 percent), but also processors and business service providers have profited. The capacity building services have had significant direct and indirect effects on these cluster actors and contributed to changing dynamics in agribusiness. Other cluster actors, such as financial service providers and research institutes have not been much targeted. Their capacity to fulfill the role of cluster actor should be further strengthened.

When it comes to the effectiveness of the training services, the reach and uptake of training activities can be further enhanced. Improvements are possible in the field of didactics (relevance of training methods, trainers and training material), knowledge transfer (availability of modules and tools, restitution by participants) and orientation (financial/business aspects, institutional strengthening).



33

t Pineapplesarepeeledandslicedbeforebeingdriedandpackagedforexport.

Lessons Learned from Training and How They Can Be Used

also at organizational levels as well . This calls for taking the application of the capacity development tools, processes, procedures, plans and agreements to the level of institutionalization . Such a strategy must ensure the replication, adaptation and expansion of the capacity development efforts through ongoing follow-ups .

The training sessions will also have to continue with a greater emphasis placed on the use of local languages rather than French and English .

AISSA NetworkIn early 2003, the Africa Division of IFDC sought to strengthen the regional partnership between itself, governmental organizations and NGOs of several countries by creating the network for Agricultural Intensification in Sub-Saharan Africa (AISSA) . The official launch of the network took place on February 13, 2004, in Lomé, Togo . The AISSA Network emphasizes institutional development, empowerment and strengthening of organizations of farmers and local entrepreneurs rather than having a more traditional focus on (participatory) technology development . Network members include representatives from research and extension agencies, including NGOs and development projects, private sector BSSs and communication and training units of farmer and trader organizations and credit structures .

The objectives of AISSA are to:

uProvide a platform for the exchange of information and experiences (e .g ., through the ‘Faces of AISSA’ brochures with experiences from the grassroots, the AISSA newsletter and the AISSA website that includes a database with key results obtained in the various cluster formation activities) .

uDevelop and disseminate tools that facilitate the development of sustainable agricultural systems and competitive rural enterprises .

uJoin forces to place agricultural intensification on the agenda of decision-makers .

uStimulate collaborative activities among members .

When the project began, all the then-AISSA members who worked with the ISFM project were requested, through visits and e-mail exchanges to develop – together with existing local POs – cluster formation and scaling up plans for 2006 . Interested AISSA members were provided support to develop the plans – based on existing work in the ISFM sites . Planning meetings and workshops were held in Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana and Mali to discuss and, if needed, adapt the cluster formation plans . Draft sub-contracts were developed with all implementing institutions to enable the facilitating institutions to start with the implementation of the activities, in particular the learning plot exercises .

The AISSA website was developed as a principal tool to create a forum for exchange of information and experiences related to sustainable agricultural intensification . The website that existed before the 1000s+ project was revised and became operational on July 28, 2008 as an English-only webpage and links . The French version was posted on August 12, 2008 (see the then-French home page on Figure 9) .

Success stories were posted on a monthly basis and the lead stories were serials from the book Competitive Agricultural Systems and Enterprises (CASE): A grassroots approach to agribusiness development and rural transformation written by Dr . Arno Maatman and collaborating 1000s+ staff . The success stories were meant to provide the necessary information to serve as a learning platform about CASE for website visitors .

34


u Anagro-dealerinBurkinaFasoadvertisescertifiedseedafterbeingtrainedabouttheadvantagesof such seed in crop production. Thedealer’scustomersbenefitfromimprovedseedavailability.

Figure 9. The Homepage of the AISSA Website as in 2008

ExplainerDC, an IT firm based in Accra, Ghana, was chosen to construct a new site in February 2009 . In April 2009 the technical team of IFDC created a blog http://aissa-africa .blogspot .com/ with a corresponding email address aissa .blog@gmail .com using the well-known free tool, Google Blogger to enable IFDC and AISSA partners to post and share messages, files, pictures, etc . It was planned that it would be easy to transfer or link such a blog to the future website, thus keeping existing data and membership available on the website .

The new website that eventually became operational near the end of 2009 shares a common content management system (CMS) with three other websites – AfricaFertilizer, Ecobiz (from ECOWAS) and the Regional Agricultural Input Market Information and Transparency System (AMITSA) . Building four

36


pA2003planningworkshopwithAISSApartnerorganizationsinBurkinaFaso.

interconnected websites around one CMS delayed putting the AISSA website on the Internet . Since it became functional, feedback from visitors to the site has been used to continuously improve its functions . Specific effort focused on creating a website to aid the functioning of the community of practice . Though it took quite some time, www .aissa .org can share information and experiences in a more interactive way than the previous site . The new site includes blogs, discussion forums, news and publications to allow the exchange of information and experiences interactively .

In the second half of 2009, 1000s+ invested in developing success stories to be posted on the AISSA website by organizing writing workshops in some countries and through outreach by communication specialists in others . These efforts generated 33 success stories and two videos from the seven countries .

The increased frequency of training in CASE concepts and agribusiness subject matters has stimulated practitioners to begin sharing information, tools and experiences at the country level and across countries . Organizations are inviting personnel from other organizations to help them in capacity building activities related to enterprise development and ISFM . CASE and ISFM practitioners are now seeing the usefulness and the potential of an organized exchange platform . The demand for the network from project partners is gratifying and we hope it is translated into sustained use of all exchange media put at their disposal by IFDC .

The project moved away from administering the website from a central location . Editing rights were granted to at least two persons per country to approve postings made from AISSA members in their respective countries . They include all the cluster advisors who have been empowered to identify others to be granted limited editing rights to post information on the site . However, the website administrators reserve the sole right to approve publishing of any information posted on the site . Training sessions on the use of the CMS were conducted beginning in the first quarter of 2010 for those identified for editing rights . A manual for editors and registered users of the website was developed and distributed to those with editing rights . Registered members can all contribute to the blogs and forum discussions freely .

In partnership with ICRA, the project conducted training programs for some of the AISSA members working with the implementing institutions on how to facilitate multi-stakeholder processes . These programs were vital for the cluster-building activities and were included in the constitutions of NCSTs for four of the seven countries in which the project operated .

Introducing Elements of CASE in Formal EducationA long-term target of the project was to influence curricula and teaching at universities and professional schools on competitive strategy and agribusiness cluster formation . The reason behind this was to introduce agricultural students to agribusiness concepts before they graduated .

The agriculture faculties of the Methodist University College and the University for Development Studies (UDS) in Ghana were involved in cluster-building activities beginning in 2007 . In 2008, the project coordinator gave a lecture on CASE for Masters of Arts students in the Economic Policy Management Department of the University of Ghana . Some students at the three universities have conducted projects linked to clusters . Other universities are platforms for CASE capacity building . In addition to the partner universities in Ghana (UDS and the Methodist University College), there are two universities in Burkina Faso that partnered with 1000s+ (Ouagadougou University and Koudougou University) . The economics departments of both universities have been gradually incorporating the CASE concept into their curricula .

There was an increased involvement of African and Western students and trainees executing studies and quantitative value chain and market analyses beginning in 2008 . These studies and analyses were used as background information for cluster and PO advisors as well as for journalists and BSSs to develop stories and narratives of lessons learned at the local and sub-national levels . Some examples are highlighted:


37

uMarleen Brouwer, a Dutch student in Political Sciences, conducted research on two themes for five months in Mali . Her work was titled “Strengthening the Power of Negotiation – A Functional Analysis of the Organizational and Trade Relations of the Local Shea Butter Union of Diolla .” This work led to the development of an action plan to begin a shea butter cluster . Her other diagnostic study was titled “The Role of the Institutional and Socio-Economic Environment in the Development of Agribusiness Clusters in Mali – A Case of the Maize Cluster in Koutiala .” This was very useful in strengthening the strategic plans of ONG AMEDD, a 1000s+ partner in the maize cluster .

uTwo other students from the Institut Polytechnique Rural de Katibougou (IPR) in Mali, Youssouf Traore and Hamza Camara, researched and wrote their dissertations on the themes “Diagnostic Studies of the Sesame Market in Mali – Analysis of the Development Opportunities” and “Organic Mango Export: Analysis of Socio-Economic Constraints to Improve the Value Chains of the Sikasso Organic Mango Cluster,” respectively . Both students went on to become project staff after completion of their studies .

uJulia Neustadt, an intern from New York University, developed an attachment to the fresh milk cluster in southern Ghana in early September 2008 . She developed a PowerPoint presentation and guide to assess entrepreneurship acumen as her output . Her lead article was built around a dairy farmer, Maame Afua, who solved her milk preservation problems and went on to earn a contract to supply milk to a yogurt producer .

Another success story was about how a farmer who did not know what soybeans were went into gainful soybean contract farming with a soydrink processing factory . This document, christened the “Rainmaker,” can be used to initiate a focus group discussion on the characteristics of an entrepreneur .

One of the strategies to promote CASE was to build interest among other development agencies and their programs .

In 2008, elements of the CASE solution were adopted by Projet de Renforcement des Capacités pour une Agriculture Durable (PRECAD), a Syngenta Foundation-funded project in Mali to support input market development and the Malian government’s rice initiative, an intervention to address high commodity prices .

Similar technical infusion of the CASE solution was made by IFDC into the World Food Programme’s Purchase for Progress (P4P) initiative in Burkina Faso (see Annex 1) and into the implementation of the Northern Regional Implementation Consultancy of the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) in Ghana .

IFDC staff from the DGIS-funded Catalyze Accelerated Agricultural Intensification for Social and Environmental Stability (CATALIST) project in the Great Lakes Region visited agribusiness clusters in Togo and Ghana in April 2008 to exchange ideas on CASE . The field experience they gained is being used to build clusters to complement the ongoing ISFM activities in Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda . The visit was repeated in 2010 . This time the team visited Benin and Togo .

After being trained by IFDC staff, the German DED (Deutsche Entwicklungs Dienst) is using the CASE solution in agricultural development projects in Bandiagara and Kita, Mali .

Integration of Elements from the CASE Solution in Regional and National Projects and Programs


39

t Asesameproducermappingtherelationshipsamongvaluechainstakeholders(Tominian,Mali).

Documentation of ExperiencesDocumenting what occurred during the project is an effective method to share information with others working within and outside the project . It is also a way of documenting the outcomes for evaluation purposes and to integrate options into future programs and projects .

Rural radio broadcasts on ISFM and CASE, students’ projects and articles on cluster activities were documented beginning in 2006 in Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mali and Togo . More time was devoted to documenting experiences gained since the beginning of the project during 2009 and 2010 . Posters, flyers, films, radio programs and articles were developed while earlier documented tools and methodologies were gathered and organized to be available as reference materials . In partnership with ICRA, cluster actors in Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana and Mali were taken through a process to identify and document changes that have occurred in their agribusiness ventures, reflect on them and the challenges ahead of them . These capitalization workshops generated 16 stories on what triggered significant outcomes and impacts in the selected clusters . Earlier, success stories documented before the partnership with ICRA were featured on the AISSA website . An excerpt from one story appears on the opposite page .

In Ghana, ICRA also conducted and documented a case study on actions undertaken in the cashew cluster to reduce transaction cost on commodity chains . The framework of CASE and some early experiences using the approach under 1000s+ were documented for a book about CASE . IFDC and ICRA collaborated to organize a writers’ workshop in Benin in December 2010 to draft success stories and case studies from each of the seven countries for a sequel to the CASE book . Twenty-one success stories were put into draft form, reflecting on at least one of these intervention domains of CASE: entrepreneurship; competitive strategies (alliances); market development; institutional environment development; entry points to cluster development; gender;

inclusiveness of vulnerable groups; finance; information system/market intelligence; and trust among cluster actors . The stories have been refined to constitute the fourth chapter of the five-chapter book . The first three chapters of the book were ready at the end of the writing workshop . The CASE book was published in 2011 .

In Benin, one- to two-page profiles of 33 of the 35 clusters were written and titled “Visage des PEA�” Each profile included information on the cluster’s location, actors, commodity, processed products and targeted markets .

40


pFarmersdiscussaccesstoagro-inputs.

HIV/AIDS and Gender

HIV/AIDS

HIV/AIDS was a cross-cutting issue and the project’s gender specialist was tasked with it . During the project’s first two years, the main activities the specialist worked on were sensitization–oriented, proposed by cluster actors in their action plans . In the years that followed, the focus shifted to linking the actors to other NGOs working in the HIV/AIDS sector, since IFDC’s competencies on the subject were less than the NGOs’ competencies . The strategy was to work with these NGOs to link affected families to specific value chains producing nutritious food . This strategy was difficult to implement because most of these NGOs with HIV/AIDS and social marketing competencies did not normally work in the agriculture and agribusiness sectors .

Gender

The main objectives of the gender unit were:

uTo work with the steering committees in charge of selecting new business ideas and guiding cluster activities to mainstream gender in their activities .

uTo work with BSS and cluster actors, urging them to take gender into consideration in their planned activities .

uTo develop related tools for gender mainstreaming .

The following activities were executed in the different countries:

uSupporting clusters in all seven countries to identify gender mainstreaming needs and account for them in activity plans .

Development of Capacity in Cross-Cutting Issues


41

pKafui(left)isthesonofMaameAfua,thedairyfarmer(right)whostandsbyhermilkjugs.Kafuideliversmilkproductsforhismotheronhisbicycle.Theyinspiredthestoryusedintheproductionof‘Rainmaker.’

uHolding workshops with a focus on gender and value chains; home management with gender equity; food hygiene for local food processors and vendors; agricultural information and communications .

uWriting articles on gender activities implemented under the 1000s+ project .

uDeveloping a manual on tools for analyzing gender in value chains .

uDeveloping case studies on diagnosing gender needs in clusters in Niger and Benin .

uInitiating a blog on gender and value chains on the AISSA website .

Working with the steering committees, the members found it necessary to have women sitting on them (with the exception of Benin) to broaden their views on the entrepreneurial challenges facing women . The results of including women led to the steering committees tackling issues such as home management, food hygiene and business management .

In the early years of the project, gender activities were restricted to just working with identified women groups . Later on, in the spirit of capitalizing on the lessons learned, the project re-strategized to focus on gender in the context of value chains . This brought forward issues such as management, investment, targeted training and complementarities of roles in farm households, all to make farm enterprises profitable . To this end tools to assess vulnerability and identify opportunities were developed . In 2009 a focus was placed on managing household incomes in a way to ensure re-investment in the family enterprises .

MarketingActivities related to marketing were paramount in the action plans of cluster actors . They were either related to developing business plans, finding markets for their commodities or improving the presentation of the commodities (packaging, labeling, quality improvement) . As in most cases, the BSS supervised the implementation of these activities . From 2007, when a marketing specialist joined the project team, expertise was focused not only on reflections at the project management level but also in guiding cluster actors directly or indirectly through the BSS .

Project Management Team

At the project management level, the activities of the marketing specialist contributed to the strategic planning and steering of the agribusiness portfolio . Activities included advisory support to cluster advisors and steering committee members on promising commodities around which to cluster actors . These insights helped evaluate and select business ideas from the numerous ones presented to the steering committees . The specialist’s expertise was helpful in reviewing the formats for developing action plans and a cluster evaluation grid for steering committee members .

Agribusiness Cluster Formation and Promotion of Value Chains

Activities carried out led to:

uCommercial contracts between a cereal processor (SITRAC-SA) and maize POs in Burkina Faso and Mali .

uDrawing an action plan linking the fruit processing factory DAFANI-SA to mango producers in Burkina Faso .

uMarket research in Ghana for the cattle clusters of Oubritenga and Sanmatenga in Burkina Faso .

uMaking inroads in the exportation of Irish potatoes from Sikasso, Mali .

42


‘Super Pepper’ processor makes his life dream a realityThe life-long dream of Affou Bindé Agossou is to become an agro-entrepreneur. “I knew I was capable of pursuing a doctorate, but to be an entrepreneur was what I desired most,” says Bindé. With little savings, Bindé began planning on how to proceed.

His first step was to establish a private company, AgroComplex, in 2006. But Bindé realized that choosing the right commodity would be crucial to his success. He methodically listed and compared various commodities and identified what would be involved to process each one, including the equipment needed. “I said to myself, the simplest is hot pepper because it stores easily and everyone in Togo eats hot pepper, morning, noon and night and all year round!” says Bindé. Believing he had considered all the essential elements, he submitted a business plan to a micro-finance bank, CoopecdeSokodé requesting a loan. The loan was quickly approved.

He approached pepper farmers who earlier were not ready to sell their produce to him on credit. This time he had cash to offer for their pepper.

“Now I have a network of producers who grow the raw materials and I know to get the quality I need, support must be given to the producers in the fields,” says Bindé.

Late in 2006, Bindé approached the 1000s+ project for assistance to his fledging business. Working with 1000s+ has helped him connect with actors throughout the value chain. Through 1000s+ the chili pepper producers got support to improved production methods, fertilizer application and other technical matters.

Bindé’s product, ‘Super Pepper’ requires constant research and improvement from processing to packaging. “When 1000s+ helped me get my product chemically analyzed, Super Pepper gained credibility as a quality product in the market,” says Bindé. 1000s+ also provided him with vital support in advertising Super Pepper, contributing to the transformation of the product into a household name and resulting in an increase in sales. 1000s+ recently supported Bindé’s efforts to improve his packaging. “When people see my pepper container, they often assume that it is imported,” says Bindé. Instead, to best present his product, he is constantly experimenting and investigating where he can locate appropriate packaging at a reasonable cost.

Today, Bindé’s new dream is to introduce Super Pepper in Europe’s new markets, not only for his company, but also for the producers dependent on income from this commodity. n


43

uTrade negotiations between the Société de Commercialisation et d’Exportation des Oléagineux (SCEO) and sesame POs in Burkina Faso .

uTrade negotiations among the Cascade Regional Union of Seed Producers (URPSC), the Provincial Cotton Producers’ Union of Comoë (UPPCC) and the Première Agence de Micro-Finance (PAMF) in Burkina Faso .

uDeveloping a strategic plan for the milk cluster in Togo .

uConducting commercial feasibility studies on cashew juice production in the Tchamba area of Togo .

Training

The project organized the following training sessions:

uTraining cluster actors in strategies to conquer a market; negotiations; contracting; and other aspects of marketing in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger .

uToTs in the subject areas mentioned above (59 men and 14 women from BSS and POs) .

uAdvisory services rendered to actors and organizations in management, marketing and trade relations .

Lessons Learned

n Strengthening capacity within clusters

Building the capacities of cluster actors contributed to raising their entrepreneurial spirit . The testimonies of the actors indicate changes in attitude and vision . However, changes in behavior are more difficult to document . To accelerate the process, there is the need to focus on the issue (not only through training but through monitoring of the actions and providing feedback) . The capacities of the BSS should also be strengthened to provide them with better agribusiness vision and entrepreneurial spirit .

44


pRiceproductiontrainingforwomenfarmersinMali.

n Developing linkages among cluster actors

The development of linkages among the different actors constitutes an important aspect of project activities . However, it is not easy to develop these linkages even when opportunities exist for actors to collaborate . An example is the cattle clusters of Oubritenga and Sanmatenga in Burkina Faso . The clusters searched for market opportunities among butchers in Tamale and Kumasi in Ghana and the butchers showed interest in purchasing 100 head of cattle on credit for their first order . However, the cattle owners were looking forward to an advance payment before delivery . They were not ready to risk a credit of 30 million FCFA on their very first transaction across the border . Third parties who could guarantee the transactions were needed (for example, local government structures in the respective countries, which own the abattoirs) or financial institutions that could provide letters of credit for the butchers . Developing such linkages is critical to scale up agribusiness clusters .

n Trade experiences

In general, the following challenges were encountered:

uLow volumes offered: The project placed more emphasis on the number of farm households reached in its M&E indicators, hoping to translate that into higher production volumes . However, some of those households were not in a position to produce to meet the market demands . In hindsight, the project could have placed an emphasis on the ability of the actors to meet market demand as a theory of change . For example, in Burkina Faso four farmer unions comprised of 945 households sold 1,435 mt of maize to the processor SITRAC-SA . Analysis indicates that on average, each household produced only 1 .5 mt of maize per season, a very low level of production .

u Inadequate market orientation: Farmers’ production forecasts do not always take into consideration market demand; rather they are often based on the available resources . This can affect meeting contract terms as seen in most of the grain clusters in all the countries .

uOver-emphasizing exports: Exporting is not necessarily the panacea to the marketing problems of cluster actors . The first question to answer is whether the actors have the necessary competence to position themselves effectively in international markets . An international trade adage – “It is pretentious to target the international market when you do not control the local one” – holds true . Nominal prices are not necessarily that much higher on the international markets .

uOver-emphasizing formal contracts: Formal contracts help structure and promote partnerships among actors; however, it is difficult to apply formal contracts to all situations – particularly in cases where the demand and supply are fragmented .

When a commodity is to be produced for sale, some fundamental questions should be answered in advance . These include: what specifically to produce; who will buy the commodity; when; what quantity; where; and at what price? Answering these questions can help cluster actors integrate the tenets of marketing into the production systems in a practical manner . Actors can then decide


45

pSamplesofprocessedsoybeanproducts.

which market segments present more opportunities than others, how they will position themselves and how to meet the demands of the market segment selected . An effective marketing plan can assist in the choice of distribution channels, analysis of the value streams and determination of commodity prices .

Market IntelligenceMarket intelligence in the context of this project was a combination of real-time information about offer and demand via short message service (SMS), systemic and regular monitoring of the economic and trade environment of a specific commodity to detect opportunities and threats in time for actors to react, as well as general web-based data regarding production, chain actors, market opportunities, etc . accessible via the Internet . The system was participatory in its setup and was (and is) managed by actors themselves .

The process to develop such a system follows a number of steps:

uSharing the vision .

uIdentification of information needs .

uTraining of future local correspondents, facilitators and webmasters .

uPurchase and installation of hardware .

uTraining and installation of a management committee selected from interested actors .

uTesting and startup .

uM&E .

To complement efforts of 1000s+, IFDC experimented with a ‘market intelligence system’ within the framework of a World Bank and a Dutch-funded project in Mali . The approach was explained to actors in the sesame and sheanut clusters who showed interest .

In Mali, progress included the following:

uA tool for systemic and regular monitoring of the economic and trade environment of the sesame and shea sector . The information can be accessed through a web portal, www .senekunnafoniso .com .

uThere are active neighborhood ‘intelligence’ units (Cellules de Proximité de Veille Active, or CPVA) in place: seven such units are in the Koulikoro region and are hosted by Rural Economic Organizations . Each CPVA has two correspondents and one intelligence facilitator .

uTwo web administrators were trained to manage the web-based market intelligence system .

uA network of actors involved in the sesame and shea sector was formed . Fourteen unions comprised of 438 cooperatives located in Koulikoro, Ségou, Sikasso and Mopti constitute this network .

uThe modalities to manage the market intelligence system are defined . Actors own the process of gathering and sharing information while they build the sustainability of the information system . A functional management committee of 14 members with a two-year mandate (renewable once) is in place . The committee has bylaws to govern its deliberations .

uA management committee was established .

46


For the time being, experiences are not yet conclusive but the system attracted interest from actors in other value chains, regional organizations such as UEMOA and telecommunications firms

such as Orange . The action-research continues in Mali with financial support from DEBPEA .

Integrated Soil Fertility Management The objective of including ISFM in the project’s activities was to strengthen farmers’ capacity to develop and use ISFM strategies to intensify and increase production .

The approach was first to deepen the understanding of the BSS in ISFM concepts, tools and technologies since they in turn facilitate cluster activities . BSS representatives were accompanied by resource persons the first time they relayed information to farmers through planned activities . There was also a special effort to promote the urea deep placement (UDP) technology in rice production in order to increase yields, reduce costs and pollution .

A large number of BSSs were trained (see chapter on training) . The pre-training evaluation showed that most participants (some without a background in agronomy) saw ISFM in its simplest form of combining mineral and organic fertilizers . There were many who confused the notion of fertilizer and how to classify the use of compost, crop rotation, anti-erosion technologies and water conservation techniques . This poor understanding of the ISFM concept contributed to the equally poor data collection and attribution of technologies/practices to sustainable land use during the first three years of the project .

The impact of the training sessions on ISFM was immediately felt when subsequent action plans had specific ISFM activities . This meant that the training increased the cluster actors’ understanding of the ISFM concept, the notion of agricultural intensification and sustainable agriculture . The sequencing of activities also showed that actors now understand that a participatory analysis of their farming systems was what they needed to better identify constraints and opportunities in their environment that would enable them develop appropriate ISFM strategies . There were also follow-up visits to evaluate the implementation of ISFM activities in the field . The resource person gave feedback to the actors, further deepening their understanding of issues and the relevance of other organizational measures such as linking to agro-dealers and pooling input demands for bulk supplies . Project staff also noticed improved data collection regarding area cultivated under sustainable land use towards the end of the project .

However, the large number of commodities embraced by the clusters in the various countries and in specific agro-ecologies call for development of appropriate fertilizer recommendations for each commodity in its growing area . This should contribute to more profitable use of fertilizers by producers and create higher demand for fertilizers .

Rural FinanceThe role of financial institutions in providing credit to the agricultural sector is known to be limited . The mistrust shown by these institutions is based on a history of poor loan repayment by farmers, their lack of collateral as well as hazards linked to climate (and climate change) . However, these financial institutions must be major players in CASE . Actors involved in the project are all unanimous regarding the importance of rural financing . Thus, a rural finance component was included in the project to address the problem of access to finance .

A rural finance specialist facilitated this component, working closely with the cluster advisors in the various countries as well as other thematic specialists .


47

From the beginning, an intervention strategy was developed and presented to all staff . It had two main directions – the expected results in rural finance and the means necessary for its implementation . They were:

uIdentify funding needs of local entrepreneurs .

uIdentify funding sources .

uLink local businesses with appropriate funding institutions .

uBuild capacity of local entrepreneurs and financial institutions .

Identification of Funding Needs

The funding requirements include:

uFinancing the supply of agro-inputs to farmers .

uSecuring working capital for marketing and processing of agricultural products .

uFinancing small-scale agricultural processing units .

uFunding other specific activities of actors when the need arises .

Identification of Available Funding

A preliminary list of financial institutions, particularly micro-finance institutions (MFIs), was developed . Information on their products/services, sectors they finance and their terms were then collected . Exchanges were also held with financial institutions with national, regional and international mandates .

Linking Local Entrepreneurs with Financial Institutions

To ensure the linkage between local entrepreneurs and financial institutions, 1000s+ developed long-term partnerships with key financial institutions and built the capacity of entrepreneurs in negotiations and facilitating meetings with them .

48


pRuralworkshopsonIFSMincludebothmenandwomenfarmer-producers.

In an effort to make collateral more available and to strengthen the financing capacity of MFIs at the local level, negotiations were held with the BRS in Benin, Burkina Faso and Togo . The negotiations, conducted in consultation with agribusiness advisors of the respective countries, led to the signing of a framework for collaboration between IFDC and BRS Burkina Faso on May 18, 2007, and with BRS Togo on June 28, 2007 . The framework stipulated that IFDC would provide technical assistance to local entrepreneurs through the implementation, M&E of the projects’ activities . In return, when reassured of the quality of technical support, BRS would consider funding of submitted proposals . The rationale was that IFDC’s support to actors would increase their reimbursement capacity .

Below is a selection of clusters that were able to access credit:

n Maize clusters in Togo

uThe Togolese poultry association (ANPAT) received a credit of 10 million FCFA in 2009 to purchase 115 mt of yellow maize supplied by maize producers of the cluster . Once the loan was reimbursed, ANPAT received a second credit of 20 million FCFA in 2010 to buy 250 mt of maize .

uThe BSS was able to facilitate access to 224 mt of fertilizers for the producers and a credit of more than 10 million FCFA for the marketing of maize by women traders in the cluster .

n AGRODIA-FEPAB in Burkina Faso

The BRS agreed to grant a credit of 101 million FCFA without collateral to boost the collaboration between AGRODIA and FEPAB for the supply of agro-inputs, thanks to the protocol the BRS signed with IFDC . However, only about 50 million FCFA were actually used by FEPAB (AGRODIA was unable to deliver all the ordered agro-inputs in time) . Refunds, despite delays at certain levels, were made in full to the FEPAB farmers .

n Rice Cluster in Mali

Actions in Mali were limited to action research on rice warrantage (inventory credit system) in Kokry (Macina) and Kouroumari located in the Office du Niger and in the regions of Segou and Sikasso . Warrantage activities

enabled the Gandakoye cooperative in Kokry to obtain a 25 million FCFA loan from the MFI Gnyèsigiso, using 243 mt of paddy rice as collateral . After marketing, the

cooperative had a profit of more than 33 million FCFA and generated net income of more than four

million FCFA .


49

t Ademonstrationofbasicsoilanalysistechniquesbeginswithfieldsamples.

Strengthening Linkages with Financial Institutions

Strengthening linkages with financial institutions was carried out at different levels .

n Linkages with institutions from the North

In collaboration with potential national and international partners, a guarantee fund mechanism was designed to facilitate collaboration with funding institutions and increase the volume of lending to rural entrepreneurs . A meeting was held with Terrafina, a consortium of three Dutch organizations (ICCO, Oikocredit and Rabobank Foundation), to explore opportunities for collaboration in West Africa .

Following the meeting in the Netherlands, the Program Officer for West Africa visited IFDC-Mali and discussed concrete areas of cooperation that included:

uIFDC facilitating access by POs and other processors to financial instruments to acquire equipment for the production and processing of agricultural commodities .

uTerrafina supporting IFDC to work with cooperatives and POs who are customers of Terrafina’s MFI partners to facilitate access to (and use of ) inputs and start-up packages .

This partnership will be further explored by the DEBPEA project in Mali .

n Supporting financial institutions to develop new financial products and services for the agricultural sector

Special attention was given to this activity beginning in 2008, primarily in the areas of technical and financial support to the Federation des Caisses Populaires du Burkina Faso (FCPB) for a study on the procedures and standards for agricultural financing . The results of this study should allow FCPB to launch a pilot project to introduce a procedure for evaluating the applications received by the actors in the agricultural sector . The old procedures do not take into account the specificities of this sector .

There was also collaboration with the Support Program on National Microfinance Strategy to improve agriculture financing by MFIs in Togo .

The rural finance specialist supported various BSSs in Togo and Benin in the identification of entrepreneurs’ training needs and the development of training modules . At the request of certain service providers in Mali, the cluster advisor organized training sessions on business plan development . At the end of the training five business plans were developed by the BSS on behalf of PO members and processors in the respective clusters .

At the organizational level, an exchange visit was organized for four technical staff members of BRS Benin, BRS Burkina Faso and BRS Togo to the National Development Bank of Mali (BNDA), which has extensive experience in financing the agriculture sector . This BRS team stayed for two weeks to share ideas and funding strategies of farmers’ organizations .

Lessons Learned

The project staff noted that key barriers to access credit were the lack of necessary credentials and the reluctance of certain financial institutions to grant loans (officially because of the absence of a minimum guarantee, but in practice also because of the lending institutions’ lack of knowledge about the agricultural sector) . However, there were some adaptations and innovations by actors to address the constraints in accessing finance . In some cases getting funding from others in the value chain was made possible through

50


Strengthening Capacity of Local Entrepreneurs and Financial Institutions

pThepresidentofafarmers’unionexplainstheeffectsofISFMonunionmembers’maizecrop(Afagnan,Togo).

negotiations and the trust established . Many actors also improved their capacities to analyze and present business plans and other documents necessary for funding .

While there were low loan recovery rates in certain areas, selling in bulk and the peer pressure from fellow group members were positive factors contributing to the relatively high loan repayment rates observed among POs participating in agribusiness clusters .

Monitoring and Evaluation The M&E system, established at the inception of the project, was comprised of eight main steps: (1) definition of indicators; (2) participatory development of the M&E plans (setting of baselines, definition of data collection and analysis methods and tools, planning of data use and communications); (3) adaptation, updating, multiplication and translating of data collection forms; (4) training of enumerators, including the leaders of the POs involved in clusters; (5) data collection and analysis; (6) results validation by cluster stakeholders in critical reflecting workshops; (7) cluster results communication and submission of narrative and financial reports; and (8) aggregation of all cluster results into a single ‘indicator table’ used in reporting and decision-making at the regional (project management) level .

Definition of IndicatorsA total of 10 intermediate results were defined and indicators were formulated for each of them . There were about 38 indicators . During the first three years of the project, cross-cutting issues were not formally included but after the M&E evaluation, these issues were addressed and included in the online database .

52


pAmeetingofbankrepresentativesandchickenandmaizeproducersestablishestheproducers’accesstocredit.

In order to facilitate data collection and analysis, one M&E facilitator was contracted in each country, beginning in 2007 . Their main tasks were to identify and train enumerators, facilitate M&E workshops (M&E plans and results validation), follow-up on data collection and analysis and communicate clusters’ results to the project M&E unit . With the increased number of clusters, another M&E facilitator was contracted in each country in 2009 .

Each year, the enumerators were identified (from BSSs and POs) and trained in data collection . These enumerators collected and analyzed data and validated results in critical reflecting workshops at the cluster level with the assistance of facilitators .

Results AggregationCluster results were sent by facilitators to the M&E unit and were then aggregated into the ‘1000s+ indicator table’ used for decision-making and report writing at the regional level . Before being disseminated, the aggregated results were re-validated by the M&E facilitators and the cluster advisors during annual M&E workshops .

Review of the M&E SystemData processing of the surveys undertaken in the frame of the review of the 1000s+ M&E system ended in August 2009 . Results indicated the M&E task and data collection forms which were most difficult to implement by the clusters’ stakeholders . Numerous statements were recorded on project stakeholders’ usage of the M&E data .


53

Participatory Development of the M&E Plans to Result Validation

Development of the Decentralized, Web-Based Database

The development of a decentralized, web-based database was among the review recommendations . Discussions and a review of the project’s indicators and their calculation methods were conducted in the first semester of 2009 . The process to develop the database continued with the functional design modules document elaboration and the renewal of the contract for the development, testing, training of trainers and generalization phases . The database became functional in mid-2010 .

The database was established with unique identi-fication codes for the following categories of data:

uTarget countries and regions

uCommodities selected

uGrassroots POs in the clusters

uLocal entrepreneurs involved

uBSS in charge of M&E

uPrices of agro-inputs and produce

uExchange rates

uProfile of all users of the application (BSS in charge of M&E, M&E facilitators, other users)

uThe domain http://casedatabase .ifdc .org was selected as a sub-domain of www .ifdc .org . It facilitated access to the database by all authorized project staff and partners .

Testing and Translation of the Database

uEight clusters were selected for the test . The choice of clusters was made by taking into account the diversity in the commodities and their years of selection . The Excel spreadsheets used for data import were prepared for these clusters from 2006 to 2009 on the achievement mode and 2010 on forecast mode . A total of 56 malfunctions were identified and corrected . The final version of the application was delivered in June 2010 and a user manual was developed .

Imports of Data into the Database

More than 90 percent of the Excel spreadsheets were imported into the database by the end of 2010 (2,757 of 3,007) . The key conclusions of the project evaluators on the new M&E database are provided in the Text Box .

Conclusions of project evaluators on the M&E systemThe system for M&E, despite all efforts that have gone into it, does not really live up to expectations. While the 1000s+ project aimed at practical grass root solutions, the M&E system is mainly geared towards upward accountability. A large part of the information it renders is neither very useful for the donor nor for the cluster actors, as a result of methodological concerns related to attribution, quality of data entry, indicator definitions, and inappropriate aggregation levels.


Establishment of the Administrative Requirements of the Database

Acquisition of a Domain Name and Hosting of the Database

54


Key ResultsTable 6 below provides key results obtained by the end of the project .

Table 6. Results Obtained in 2010

Intermediate Results (IR) Indicators Results

IR 1: Various technologies aimed at improving the efficiency of fertilizer usage, livestock farming, storage/processing/handling have been developed with the effective participation of actors.

Number of new agricultural technologies in use by farmers 301

Number of new livestock farming technologies in use 39

Number of new storage and handling technologies in use by local agro-dealers 70

Number of new storage, processing and handling technologies in use by local processors 228

Number of new products developed by processors 2,250

IR 2: Institutional arrangements and marketing strategies that can facilitate agricultural intensification have been identified, used and validated among cluster actors.

Number of formal contracts signed between cluster actors 518

Number of formal contracts respected 453

Number of informal/verbal contracts between cluster actors 1,609

Number of informal/verbal contracts respected 1,392

IR 3: Technological and institutional innovations are proven, validated and popularized.

Number of new innovations (technological and institutional) put on training aids 120

Number of posters produced 323

Number of brochures and folders produced 7,006

Number of audio cassettes or CDs produced 271

Number of caps produced 535

Number of t-shirts produced 2,126

Number of calendars produced 654

IR 4: Capacities of farmers and their organizations are further strengthened to:(i) Generate and disseminate information(ii) Develop sustainable linkages with credit/info/input and output markets inside and outside the pilot zone.

Capacity strengthening programs (training, exchange visits, workshops, etc.) organized for farmers and their organizations

730

Number of participants 32,613

Number of women 11,679

IR 5: The capacities of local entrepreneurs (agro-dealers, traders, processors, cooperatives, etc.) are strengthened to: (i) provide information and good quality, sufficient and timely inputs to producers; (ii) store, transport, process and sell agricultural products to consumers.

Capacity strengthening programs (training, exchange visits, workshops, etc.) organized for agro-dealers, traders, processors, banks and MFIs

229

Number of participants 6,235

Number of women 2,745


55

Intermediate Results (IR) Indicators Results

IR 6: The capacities of service providers are strengthened to facilitate agricultural intensification, development of clusters and their integration into value chains as well as the creation of favorable environment in accordance with the CASE approach.

Number of service providers (BSS) having contracts with IFDC under the 1000s+ project 91

Capacity strengthening programs (distance learning, modular courses, full-time academic courses, workshops, exchange visits, etc.) of the service providers

363

Number of participants 799

Number of women participants 235

Number of new projects developing agricultural value chains won after the capacity strengthening by the 1000s+ project

42

IR 7: Other agricultural development institutions (technical services and parastatals, NGOs, projects and programs) working in the target region are informed and sensitized on the 1000s+ project and its CASE approach and they are gradually adopting it.

Number of meetings (workshops, open days, exchange visits) to share and exchange experiences with other organizations working in the target area

149

Number of organizations that participated 612

IR 8: The capacities of non-local importers/wholesalers and retailers are strengthened to provide information and good quality, sufficient and timely inputs to cluster level input dealers/retailers and farmer cooperatives.

Number of capacity strengthening programs for non-local input importers and wholesalers 7

Number of organizations whose capacities were strengthened 58

Number of formal contracts between input importers, distributors, retailers and cooperatives in the clusters 29

IR 9: The capacities of non-local processors and traders (wholesalers) are strengthened to provide timely and sufficient order of raw or semi-processed produce from cluster-level actors.

Number of capacity strengthening programs for non-local wholesalers, trading firms, agro-food processors 8

Number of formal contracts between wholesalers, trading firms, processors and local cluster actors 60

IR 10: Project’s stakeholders’ capacities are strengthened to put in place an institutional environment conducive for a transparent and competitive agribusiness system.

Number of successful advocacy and lobbying events towards a more favorable institutional environment than what existed at the local level

68

Number of successful advocacy and lobbying events towards a more favorable institutional environment than what existed at the national or international level

32

56


Number of Households Reached

Figure 10 below presents the trend in the number of households reached by 1000s+ from 2006 to 2010 (compared with the thresholds set in the project document) .

Figure 10. Number of Households Reached from 2006 to 2010

The 615,681 households reached in 2010 are composed of 429,643 household members and non-members of the grassroots cooperatives, as well as another 186,038 households reached through other agribusiness value chain projects owned by partner institutions (as a result of capacity developments through CASE) . The number of households reached may be higher than what is reported as not all the beneficiaries of the project’s activities are known and recorded on the M&E data collection forms . The new farming technologies and the other relevant agribusiness information broadcast via radio and television may have been adopted by many actors (although not recorded in the M&E data) .

Changes in Yield of Selected Commodities

Significant increases in yields of four crops were recorded during the project’s life-cycle . Groundnut yields increased by an average of 58 percent across all the countries when compared with 2006 yields .

Table 7. Changes in Yield of Four Major Crops from 2006 to 2010

Crop Units 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % Change from Reference Year

Cassava kg/ha 13,499 15,130 16,161 15,554 16,919 25.34%

Cowpeas kg/ha 635 710 835 766 911 43.52%

Groundnuts kg/ha 1,161 1,195 1,207 1,303 1,837 58.23%

Maize kg/ha - 1,948 2,194 3,105 2,585 32.70%

The other crops registered incremental increases that are less than 50 percent (although significant) .


57

Revenue Generated by Selected Commodities

The average annual income per hectare of the four major crops mentioned above is presented in Table 8 .

Table 8. Revenue Generated by Four Major Crops Per Hectare, 2006-2010

Crop Units 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % Change From Reference Year

Cassava FCFA 140,978 156,131 242,467 231,628 51.53%

Cowpeas FCFA 83,519 95,036 96,065 89,370 126,966 52.02%

Groundnuts FCFA 174,148 195,046 210,764 175,926 21.65%

Maize FCFA 83,102 79,322 126,334 168,150 231,997 179.17%

Table 8 shows a 179 percent increase in maize revenue and increases in revenue of more than 50 percent in cassava and cowpeas . Despite an almost 60 percent increase in yield over the five-year period, groundnut revenue per hectare increased by less than 22 percent .

Land Area Cultivated in a Sustainable Way

Additional land area under sustainable use because of the introduction of ISFM strategies is presented in Figure 11 .

Figure 11. Additional Land Area Under Sustainable Use, 2006-2010 (in hectares)

Clearly, the achievement of 236,198 hectares was far below the target of two million additional ha of land under sustainable use . This was attributed to four reasons: (1) over-estimation of the end-of-project target; (2) high prices and limited access to inorganic fertilizer by farmers, who needed to add it to manure and ISFM strategies; (3) inadequacy in the measuring methods (lack of global positioning system [GPS] at the field level); and (4) misunderstanding of the notion of sustainable soil management .

58


In hindsight, the initial hypothesis of having two additional ha of land cultivated in a sustainable way by each targeted household was based on the assumption that each household had on average four ha of land, of which half would be used sustainably and all clusters would be constituted around crops . This was not the case . As at 2010, the 218 active clusters included 187 (86 percent) that were crop-based, while 31 (14 percent) clusters produced commodities emanating from animal production or other non-crop sources . The average farm land per household allocated to field crops (maize, soybeans, cassava, rice, millet, etc .) was less than one ha (0 .89 ha per household) . For vegetables (peppers, tomatoes, onions, shallots, ginger, etc .) it was 0 .35 ha per household . Of this cropland, 50 percent of the area allocated to vegetables was farmed in a sustainable manner, compared with 29 percent for field crops .

Additional Production (in Cereal Equivalents)Figure 12 shows the trend in the additional production of the selected commodities in cereal equivalents . The target set for the end-of-project was exceeded by 268 percent in 2010 .

Figure 12. Trend of Annual Additional Agricultural Production in Cereal Equivalents (mt)

The cumulative additional production volumes more than quadrupled by 2010 as shown in Figure 13 .

Figure 13. Cumulative Agricultural Production in Cereal Equivalents (mt)


59

Number of Entrepreneurs Involved

The trend in the number of entrepreneurs involved in the project is presented in Figure 14 . The number of entrepreneurs joining the clusters increased from 503 in 2006 to nearly 4,000 in 2009 .

Figure 14. Number of Entrepreneurs Involved in Cluster Activities, 2006-2010

The number of entrepreneurs decreased in 2010 as many of them joined a formal group, which was registered as such in the new online database .

60


pAfarmershowshisnewlyinstalledpassivedripirrigationsystem.

Lessons LearnedThe revision of the M&E system elicited many useful lessons that were integrated to improve the system . Notable lessons included:

uThe stipulated execution period of action plans was not convenient for the production cycle of some clusters (e .g ., fattening of animals, milk production and dry season onions) .

uInsufficient resources for adequate data collection .

uTerminologies used in some indicators were not clear to the enumerators .

uSome targets were very ambitious .

uThe data collection system is too elaborate and costly . There were more than 10 M&E facilitators in 2010 in addition to enumerators at the cluster level; about 15 percent of the annual budget was allotted to M&E activities .

The database now provides timely access to information about the clusters . This can facilitate the work of the steering committees and the actors as they develop action plans . Strengthening capacities of the actors will always be fundamental to the drive to minimize errors .

Collaboration with Other Projects IFDC committed to generate additional funding for the project . In addition, cumulative in-kind contributions were expected from producer organizations and other program beneficiaries for training events and cluster-building activities .

IFDC promised to generate synergy with other IFDC projects and additional funding for ‘spin-off’ projects .

IFDC ProjectsCollaboration with other IFDC projects and programs included the following:

u Market Information Systems (MIS) and Strengthening Regional Networks of Market Information Systems and Traders Organization in West Africa (MISTOWA), a USAID-funded regional project which focused on agricultural MIS needed to provide adequate information on offer, demand and market prices of selected commodities . Unfortunately, the project ended after one year . Because IFDC managed to find some new funding for the project’s activities, MISTOWA’s contribution was not completely lost but became less effective .

u Fertilizers and Sustainable Agricultural Development (FSAD). This IFA-funded project increased the availability of agricultural inputs at the producer level in the agribusiness cluster . The project’s emphasis was the training of agro-dealers, the establishment of agro-input shops, demonstration fields and strengthening the linkages between POs and agro-dealer associations .

u Marketing Inputs Regionally (MIR and MIR Plus). These DGIS-funded projects were focused (and MIR Plus continues to focus) on strengthening agro-dealers and their networks and on the regional and national regulation of agro-input markets . Particularly since the start of MIR Plus, collaboration has been established to increase knowledge at the farmer level about agro-inputs and input use . For instance, rice clusters have established demonstration and learning plots featuring the UDP technology .

u Improvement of Competitiveness of the Cotton Sector in Benin. This project, funded from 2006 to 2009 by the Netherlands Embassy in Benin, sought to showcase improvements in the cotton sector in


61

Benin . The objective was to strengthen the capacities of village-level producer groups, reduce poverty and improve livelihoods and to increase the sustainability of cotton production and natural resource management . Interventions included: (1) ISFM and integrated pest management (IPM) methods; (2) improved cotton quality through use of better harvesting and storage methods and CPPs; (3) improved market access for cotton and other agricultural products; and (4) advocacy and lobbying capacities of farmers’ and traders’ organizations . In part, the project used the CASE methodology, and the gender specialist experimented with approaches to better include women in cotton production and decision-making regarding income distribution .

u Développement Economique à la Base par les Pôles d’Entreprises Agricoles (DEBPEA). This project is funded by the Netherlands Embassy in Mali . DEBPEA was designed to strengthen the interventions of 1000s+ in Mali . It is continuing the 1000s+ work, providing additional financing for cluster development and additional capacity for training and communication, possibilities to experiment innovative approaches in rural finance and market information .

In 2011, a sesame-specific project financed by the Common Fund for Commodities through the Royal Tropical Institute in Amsterdam was integrated with the DEBPEA project, using the CASE approach (Amélioration au Mali de la production et de la transformation du sésame orientées vers l’exportation) .

u Amélioration de l’Accès des Producteurs Agricoles aux Intrants Non-Coton au Bénin, funded by the Netherlands Embassy in Benin (June 2009-June 2012) . This project, using the CASE approach, is stimulating fertilizer use on crops other than cotton . A strong collaboration with the 1000s+ project was established .

Spin-Off ProjectsSeveral partner institutions have shown interest in IFDC’s capacity to develop, experiment and introduce innovative approaches .

u Programme Compétitivité et Diversification Agricole (PCDA), funded by the World Bank in Mali, showed interest in putting in place market intelligence systems for targeted commodities and value chains . Starting with mangoes and potatoes, additional commodities would be targeted at a rate of one per year . Unfortunately this project was delayed and temporarily closed due to internal management problems and the initial work was not finalized . However, elements of the project were incorporated into DEBPEA (see above) .

u Développement Economique de la Région de Koulikoro (DERK). This project, funded by the Netherlands Embassy in Mali and implemented by SNV, sub-contracted IFDC to support ISFM and the establishment of market intelligence systems for shea nuts and sesame . Both commodities counted a number of agribusiness clusters under 1000s+ and collaboration with DERK offered an opportunity to put more emphasis on these intervention areas .

u Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture (SFSA). At different times the Syngenta Foundation has shown interest in CASE . Information exchange and training in CASE led to collaboration with SFSA’s PRECAD project near Ségou (Mali) .

u Purchase for Progress (World Food Programme, WFP). This collaboration took place primarily in Burkina Faso where a formal memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed between IFDC and WFP (see Annex 1) . In Mali and Ghana, agribusiness clusters established with support of the 1000s+ project also provided produce to the market created by WFP for their local purchases .

62


u AwomanproducertakesnotesduringanISFMtrainingsession.

SAADA B BackgroundThe grant proposal submitted to DGIS for SAADA A was accompanied by a proposal for financial support of two additional programs: SAADA B and SAADA C . The B-component related to the introduction of IFDC’s CASE solution in other parts of Africa (specifically the Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes Region) . During the Mid-Term Review the objectives of SAADA B were revised . After two years of implementation, IFDC concluded that conditions for a successful implementation of CASE in other regions were not in place . In particular, the limited availability of staff experienced in CASE made it difficult to upscale the approach in West Africa and introduce it in other parts of Africa at the same time . Therefore, IFDC and DGIS agreed to revise the scope of SAADA B .

The main objective of SAADA B was no longer to transfer lessons learned in SAADA A to other African regions, but rather to facilitate strategic investments by IFDC . Via SAADA B, IFDC would explore ways to address leading constraints to agribusiness development and develop innovative strategies to encourage agro-input supply and demand .

With the change in project focus, five major components of the SAADA B program were highlighted:

uMarket Information Systems (MIS)

uUrea Deep Placement (UDP) methodologies

uFertilizer recommendations

64


pThemainpageoftheAfricaFertilizer.orgwebsite.

uSupport to the CATALIST project

uHuman-urban waste

In addition, the specific regional focus of SAADA B was replaced by a focus on research and development (R&D) and innovative agricultural approaches (applicable continent-wide) .

Key AccomplishmentsuThe organization of the Africa Fertilizer Summit, which resulted in agricultural action plans in 30 countries

and four regional action plans for the improvement of agro-input markets and the use of fertilizers .

uEstablishment, implementation and roll-out of appropriate MIS – notably AMITSA and AfricaFertilizer .org .

uSuccessful introduction of technological innovation of the UDP/urea supergranules (USG) methodologies in West Africa .

uSuccessful fine-tuning of fertilizer recommendations in various countries and for different commodities .

uSuccessful start of a pilot program in Accra on organic fertilizers from urban waste recycling .

uExpanding CASE through support provided to the CATALIST project in Burundi, DRC and Rwanda .

Activities

n BackgroundThe lack of accurate and timely information about the agro-input sector is widely recognized at continental, regional, national and local levels, and remains a key constraint to the development of business linkages and trade in Sub-Saharan Africa . While significant progress is being made by public and private institutions to deploy market information services using modern information and communication technology (ICT) tools, the particularities and complexity of the fertilizer, seeds and/or CPPs value chains are still major constraints to their inclusion into broader information systems .

In 2008, with SAADA B funding, IFDC conducted exploratory missions in Eastern and Southern Africa and proposed a road map to implement a dedicated agro-input technical and marketing information system (AMITSA) in collaboration with Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and East African Community (EAC), both partnering with IFDC under

Market Information Systems


65

the Strengthening Trade at the Regional Level in Agricultural Inputs in Africa project (STAR), funded by the Hewlett Foundation (2006-2009) . This regional MIS is closely related to AfricaFertilizer .org, also supported by SAADA B funding . AfricaFertilizer .org is a tool that can fuel the Africa Green Revolution as outlined by African heads of states in the Abuja Declaration at the Africa Fertilizer Summit in Abuja, Nigeria in 2006 .

Based on lessons learned from the African Agricultural Market Information Network (AFAMIN) (2001-2004) and MISTOWA (2004-2008) projects, IFDC staff embarked on a common approach for these initiatives in order to maximize their chances of success while optimizing cost and time to develop these tools and web sites .

n AfricaFertilizer.orgLaunched in March 2010, AfricaFertilizer .org’s objective is to facilitate and manage the development of a shared source of technical and market information on fertilizers in Africa in support of the implementation of

continental, regional and national agricultural policies, and to benefit the private sector, especially the region’s smallholder farmers and agro-dealers .

With support from U .S .-based IFDC staff, the technical staff in Accra has maintained and updated the AfricaFertilizer .org website . Production, import, export and consumption tables for both fertilizer products and nutrients show the latest data currently available from IFA and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) . Fertilizer prices are monitored at international and local levels . The international fertilizer market is monitored through a partnership with ICIS initiated in 2010 . At the national level, average retail price tables for fertilizer products are updated every month, using local prices collected by AMITSA (eight countries in East Africa) and the MIR Plus project (10 countries in West Africa) .

During 2012-2015, IFDC plans to continue the development of www .africafertilizer .org . The initiative is now supported institutionally, technically and financially by a consortium led by five internationally recognized organizations, namely the Africa Union and its NEPAD agency, FAO, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), IFA and IFDC (leading the program implementation and providing day-to-day management of the portal) .

n AMITSA IFDC (through its Nairobi-based East and Southern Africa Division) is collaborating with COMESA and EAC to establish and maintain an agro-input MIS, known as the Regional Agricultural Input Market Information System (AMITSA) . AMITSA is a regional MIS dedicated to agro-inputs in Southern and Eastern Africa .

AMITSA implementation began in June 2009, and it focuses on fertilizers, seeds and CPPs . The first year was focused primarily on the development and the structure and systems including web-based applications and modules, and of a network of partners and contributors in the field . The AMITSA network currently covers eight countries – Burundi, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia . In collaboration with ministries of agriculture, agro-input trade associations, local projects and NGOs, AMITSA staff members have identified and trained more than 230 agro-dealers in 120 towns in the region to share monthly prices and sales trends from their agro-input shops . Statistics, directories, publications and market news are compiled and shared via an interactive, web-based portal (www .amitsa .org) . Monthly price reports are sent by e-mail to over 600 recipients and can be downloaded from the site’s publication center .

66


The second phase, which started in July 2010, involved the integration of Esoko’s mobile phone applications (www .esoko .com/amitsa) into the AMITSA system, covering all agro-inputs (fertilizers, seeds and CPPs) . Esoko is a web-based tool that gives people and businesses the opportunity to share information quickly and affordably . This added a layer of options for receiving and distributing data to and from ’the bottom of the pyramid’ – agro-dealers, farmers and their associations and groups – using mobile phones . Price information, technical, extension or marketing messages and alerts are distributed to more than 10,000 agro-dealers profiled by partnering projects and organizations . AMITSA was publicly launched on May 17, 2011, in Nairobi .

n Lessons Learned

Building Partnerships to Ensure Sustainability and Outreach

IFDC has been able to successfully build and deploy AfricaFertilizer .org and AMITSA because public-private partnerships were at the heart of strategy and implemented in collaboration and for the benefit of all parties involved .

Both initiatives rely on the principle of free access to information and data for every user, and on voluntary and free contributions from partners, whether public, project or private organizations and businesses .

This approach has generated interest and support from institutional players such as regional economic communities (RECs), as well as global agro-input companies such as Monsanto, Yara and their trade associations (IFA, African Seed Trade Association [AFSTA], CropLife International) . Information is relayed by more and more local and regional, public and private MIS and media which previously had no access to such information on agro-inputs . The information now reaches subsistence and commercial farmers, agro-input suppliers and small agro-dealers across the continent .


67

u Diagramshowingtheinterrelationshipofthe AfricaFertilizer.org andAMITSA.org websites.

Outsourcing the Technology, Focusing on Support to Users, Promotion and Dissemination

Inclusion of web and mobile technologies developed by specialized third parties has made possible the creation of low-cost and user-friendly collection and dissemination channels . This strategy has allowed IFDC to allocate a significant proportion of resources available to deliver necessary technical trainings to data contributors, to invest in promotion and awareness creation and to distribute customized information on agro-inputs to end-users .

n More work is required to serve better end-users, and get measurable impacts

IFDC is still in the early stages of implementing these programs . Early efforts were dedicated to establish a viable and effective system of data collection and distribution . More time and effort are now required to

68


pLocationsofAMITSAdatacollectionsites.

profile and identify the specific needs of the agribusiness clusters targeted by the project and more generally stakeholders involved in the agro-input supply chain .

BackgroundUDP is a science-based technology developed by IFDC to improve nutrient use efficiency (NUE), particularly of nitrogen (N) . With SAADA funding, IFDC launched a program to introduce UDP in West Africa and Madagascar through its Natural Resource Management Program (NRMP) . After two years of field tests, the challenge ahead is to design and implement a strategic plan to expand the use of the technology into areas where results have been promising .

The activities addressed demand- and supply-side issues concurrently to: create demand for UDP technology; develop the indigenous capacity of entrepreneurs to supply market demand with high-quality USG products; and engage in promotional activities to stimulate demand . The activity portfolio is organized into four areas:

u Participatory farmer demonstrations of UDP in selected target countries and pilot-irrigation schemes to enable the successful expansion of UDP across Africa .

u Participatory adaptive research to: fine-tune UDP (taking into account agro-climatic, transplanting and water management-related constraints and any research issues that might compromise its technical performance and adoption by farmers); and study its long-term effect on soil properties .

u Capacity building of national service providers, farmer-based organizations (FBOs) and agro-dealers through skill development training programs and USG-equipment provision to meet the expected increase in USG demand .

u USG supply chain development to meet the expected increase in USG demand during the expansion phase .

n Develop Demand and Motivate Farmers to Adopt the Technology

The number of participating rice farmers increased from 1,194 in 2009 to 3,550 in early 2011 . The total number of farmers that participated in the UDP promotion across all pilot countries is about 6,700 . Concurrently, the rice crop area under UDP demonstration increased from 12 ha in 2009 to 1,775 ha in 2011, and the total demonstration area under UDP across all participating countries is about 2,760 ha (Figure 15) .

Promotion of Urea Deep Placement in West Africa


69

pFarmerstakingpartinaUDPdemonstration.

Figure 15. Evolution of Total Crop Area (ha) Under UDP and Number of Participating Farmers Across all Pilot Countries

The demand for USG is steadily increasing and the major challenge in the near future is to develop local input marketing strategies that will stimulate a supply chain of USG with the strong involvement by the private sector .

n Agronomic Performance of UDPThe demonstration program compares UDP with farmer practice (FP) – the broadcast application of prilled urea (PU) . UDP treatments include using USG granules of either a 1 .8 g or 2 .7 g size, depending on country and irrigation scheme . FP is the conventional broadcast application of prilled urea, quite often applied at a higher amount per hectare than USG . Uniform basal application of 30-40 kg P2O5 ha and K2O ha were given in all plots (UDP and FP) as compound fertilizer (NPK or DAP) before or just after final plowing . Plot size was about 500 m2 . An irrigation watertable of 3 to 5 cm was maintained in UDP plots and alternate wetting and drying was applied to FP plots throughout the cropping seasons .

Grain yields varied significantly among countries and irrigation schemes . Yield with UDP was higher than PU . Mean yield advantage of USG over PU across all pilot countries was about 1,200 kg/ha . But it varied significantly among pilot countries, and the highest mean yield advantage was observed in Nigeria (2,132 kg/ha) followed by Madagascar (1,498 kg/ha) and Burkina Faso (1,691 kg/ha) (Figure 16) .

70


pFieldtrialsofUDPtechnologyonrice.

Figure 16. Irrigated Rice Grain Yield as Affected by UDP and FP in Irrigated Rice Systems in Eight African Countries – 2009-2010

n Strengthening Local Capacity in Support of UDP Expansion

Farmers’ Field Days

More than 120 motivational field visits and promotional activities (open days, exhibitions) were organized across all irrigation schemes and target countries . About 60,000 individuals participated in the field visits, including farmers, members of rice producer associations, agro-dealers, local entrepreneurs and manufacturers . Participants seized the opportunity to exchange thoughts and views about the strengths and weaknesses of UDP . These field visits were used to initiate business linkages between participants in order to increase the local production and provision of urea briquettes (USG) and machines . Most participants gave the opinion that UDP was more effective and profitable than the broadcast application of PU . Many rice farmers expressed their satisfaction with UDP and their willingness to convert their PU into briquettes . Hence, the potential demand for USG is steadily increasing and the challenge in the near future is to develop local input marketing strategies that will stimulate a supply chain of USG with a strong involvement of the private sector .

Equipment Provision to Increase the Availability of USG

Eight briquette machines were purchased from Bangladesh and distributed to participating partners in order to produce USG for demonstrations .

International Learning Tours in Bangladesh

Two international learning tours were organized in 2008 and 2009 to Bangladesh for 20 African agriculture practitioners . The learning tours enabled UDP-related knowledge sharing and scientific exchanges between Bangladeshi and African scientists and created future business opportunities for manufacturing/selling briquette machines and producing USG between Bangladeshi manufacturers and African entrepreneurs . Some African entrepreneurs have purchased prototypes for training maintenance/manufacturing of briquette machines and production of USG in Africa .


71

National Training of Trainer Workshops

In order to strengthen the technical expertise of partners and enable them to keep up with the expansion of UDP, 80 training workshops were organized from 2009 to early 2011 . About 1,800 scientists, extension agents, technicians and rice farmers participated in these trainings . The emphasis was on the ground rules governing nitrogen management, which was a prerequisite for participants to understand the logic behind the promotion of UDP, and when and where it could be successfully promoted . At the end of each training workshop, visits to pilot-irrigation schemes were organized in order to put the lessons learned into practice . Various UDP-related extension materials were distributed to the trainers and rice farmers to be used as training aids and/or communication tools for knowledge sharing among rice farmers, extension agents, scientists and policymakers .

Regional Training-of-Trainer Workshop on UDP

A regional training-of-trainers (ToT) on UDP was organized in Burkina Faso in July 2010 . The training program was organized with technical assistance from IFDC’s EurAsia Division . Participants from nine African countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Togo) attended the training program . The 35 participants were exposed to the required conditions for the successful use and adoption of the UDP technology and factors affecting the costs and benefits associated with its use were also presented . They also were provided information on the agronomic principles and technical aspects determining the efficient use of the technology, the design and engineering system of the briquette machine and the newly released injector applicator . A practical training session was organized to enable participants to operate a briquette machine and adjust the pressing rollers to produce the required granule size and form . A field exercise was organized to experiment with the use of the applicator .

Strategic Planning for UDP Expansion in West Africa

A regional workshop was held December 13-15, 2010, in Cotonou, Benin . The workshop was jointly organized by the ECOWAS and UEMOA commissions and IFDC . The primary objective of the workshop was to share progress made to date in the promotion and expansion of UDP among participating countries, and to prepare an integrated strategic plan for its future expansion . Forty participants from nine African countries attended this workshop . At the end of discussions, the workshop participants recommended the following:

uIFDC to facilitate the establishment of UDP working groups at national and regional levels .

uECOWAS and UEMOA commissions to facilitate the organization of a business meeting at the regional level with the aim of mobilizing funding resources for UDP technology .

uAgricultural machinists were urged to strengthen their newly formed association in order to efficiently participate in the UDP expansion process in West Africa .

Facilitating a Mechanical Engineering Work Group to Design a Local USG Applicator

The deep placement of USG in transplanted rice is an additional field task that naturally requires additional labor which often has been cited by many participating rice farmers as one of the major constraints to UDP application . To address this concern a workshop was organized with the MIR Plus project in Burkina Faso from December 1-5, 2010, which gathered six local machine fabricators from Burkina Faso, Madagascar, Niger, Niger, Senegal and Togo . The aim was to harness local expertise to engineer and manufacture locally adapted and improved manual granule applicators . After five days of mechanical work, the machinists were able to

72


design and manufacture an applicator prototype . This newly designed applicator was inspired by one from Bangladesh (Figure 17) that is manufactured with local materials and has a reservoir that can hold up to 1 kg of granules at a time (Figure 17, C) . The participants also established a regional association of agricultural machinists named MATAGRI Conceptors .

Figure 17. Adaptation Process of Imported Injector Type of Applicator

n Participatory Adaptive ResearchAdaptive/applied research is being conducted in collaboration with public research and extension services providers . The aim of the research is to fine-tune/adapt the UDP technology to local agricultural practices and facilitate its large-scale dissemination . IFDC investigated the agronomic performance of four rice varieties as affected by two nitrogen sources (PU and USG) applied to the ferruginous soils in the irrigation schemes of Kou in Burkina Faso . The objective of the test was to screen high-yielding rice varieties under UDP and understand the cause-effect relationships between soil and plant factors determining the performance of UDP technology .

Key adaptive research areas also included the adaptation of the technologies to local settings where rice is not transplanted in rows but at random . Work was also done to define the optimum UDP placing period given the soil fertility level and the management of phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) nutrients in the systems .

Furthermore, field and greenhouse experiments were conducted at various sites in Burkina Faso and Niger to evaluate the effect of UDP on agro-economic performance and the use efficiency of nitrogen on irrigated rice as compared to common FP using PU . UDP generated significantly higher grain yields than FP . It also was determined that floodwater pH was lower with UDP than with broadcast application of PU . UDP adversely affected rice root growth during the growing period and the magnitude of the gap varied among varieties . Total N uptakes and recoveries were greater with UDP (64 percent) than with FP (53 percent), with TS 2 (76 kg/ha) showing the highest and Nerica 62 (55 kg/ha) the lowest uptakes and recoveries .


73

p Different types of FDP applicators were studied, designed and tested in 2010 and 2011: (A) Bangladeshi injector-applicator; (B) applicator prototype developed by a local blacksmith; and (C and D) local applicators developed by MATAGRI Conceptors.

n ConclusionAfter a two-year participatory demonstration, UDP was seen to be a technological option that fits well into small-scale African rice farming systems as it uses less fertilizer while increasing crop yields . The total crop area under UDP across all African pilot countries is therefore expanding while the demand for urea briquettes is steadily increasing . The challenge is to develop local agricultural input marketing strategies that will stimulate the emergence of a local and private sector-led supply chain of urea briquettes and required equipment, including briquette machines and applicators .

Fertilizer Recommendationsn BackgroundFertilizer use often fails to meet expectations because of the current ‘pan-territorial/blanket’ recommendations, regardless of the complexity and diversity of the context in which smallholder farmers are operating . Such non-site-specific, pan-territorial and static nutrient recommendations have many negative consequences which have profound implications on farmers’ willingness to use fertilizer and subsequent fertilizer demand and use . Therefore there is an urgent need to adequately revise and improve the fertilizer recommendations currently in use in Africa . IFDC used SAADA B funds to leverage funds from other projects to initiate efforts to revise fertilizer recommendations in West Africa . The work focused on crops of great importance (sorghum, maize, cocoa) and incorporated basic scientific information that uses decision support tools to generate recommendations to be validated . Efforts were also made to gather basic data and to revise the recommendations for other crops such as cassava .

n Improving Fertilizer Recommendations for Cereal Crops in West Africa

Objectives

The main objective was to increase nutrient use efficiency for improved crop productivity through the promotion of site-specific fertilizer recommendations .

Specifically, IFDC focused on:

uCalibrating selected crop models for cereal production.

uFormulating optimal N, P and K rates for cereal production using the calibrated models.

uEvaluating the simulated N, P and K rates on-farm and on-station.

uDisseminating the validated options through Participatory Learning and Action Research (PLAR).

74


Approaches and Methodology

Two approaches were used – the community-based approach and the quantitative modeling and spatial tools linkage approach .

The Community-Based Approach

In the community-based approach, nutrient omission trials are conducted with farmers to collect minimum datasets for Quantitative Evaluation of the Fertility of Tropical Soils (QUEFTS) model calibration and use for site-specific fertilizer rates formulation . The nutrient omission trials are established according to the design and treatments (Table 9) .

Table 9. Nutrient Omission Plots Treatments

Mini-Plots N P K

No N Plot: 0-N, +P, +K 0 + +

No P Plot: 0-P, +N, +K + 0 +

No K Plot: 0-K, +N, +P + + 0

+N, +P, +K + + +

Check Plot 0N, 0P, 0K 0 0 0

0 = nutrient is not applied, it is the “omitted nutrient”; + = nutrient is sufficiently applied so as not to limit crop growth (the exact amount depends on growth conditions; one may refer to recommendations currently used by extension staff, or to what the best farmer does) . This type of trial helps evaluate the indigenous supply capacity of soil nutrients, which is an important input for a QUEFTS model in formulating fertilizer rates to be applied . Two other important parameters used by QUEFTS are the internal efficiency of nutrients by the crop and the recovery fractions of fertilizers applied . All these parameters can be obtained from the nutrient omission trial . This approach was implemented in Benin, Burkina Faso, northern Ghana and Togo where some options were developed after running nutrient omission trials (NOT) for two consecutive rainy seasons on sorghum, upland rice and on maize according to agro-ecological zones . This allowed the development of ‘a-la-carte’ fertilizer recommendations for communities which allow each farmer to pick a recommendation based on his purchasing power or market objectives .

The Quantitative Modeling and Spatial Tools Linkage Approach

Also called the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer-Geographic Information Systems (DSSAT-GIS)-based approach, it consists of using the DSSAT model to simulate

crop growth and development, then in displaying and conducting spatial analysis of the outputs using GIS tools . Site-specific crop and nutrient management

recommendations were developed using this approach in Burkina Faso and Benin . The minimum dataset for model use was comprised of soil, climate and crop characteristic information . This approach allows several applications including the determination of the best planting period of the crop and the most efficient N-P-K

combination for crop production in a specific area .

After running the simulations, the optimal options were selected and are being evaluated on-farm and on-station for their validation . The steps followed in this approach

are summarized in Figure 18 .


75

Figure 18. Procedure for Site-Specific Fertilizer Recommendations Using DSSAT-GIS Based Approach

76


n Results in Burkina FasouSeven geo-referenced databases were built comprising:

� Two at the national level according to agro-ecological zones and administrative divisions both at 1/500,000 scale .

� Three at the regional level in the East (Gourma), the West (Comoe) and North (Zondoma) at 1/100,000 scale .

� Two at watershed scale (Zondoma watershed: 1/100,000; Sourou valley at 1/20,000) .

uMore than 30 years (1977-2007) of daily climate data (rainfall, of sunlight hours, minimum and maximum temperatures) collected from 10 synoptic stations were compiled .

uTwo main maize varieties (FBC6, SR22) were calibrated for DSSAT .

uFertilizer recommendations were formulated for two maize varieties (FBC6 and SR22) in the eastern and southern regions of the country .

� Optimum sowing dates for optimum return in fertilizer investments were defined (see Figure 19) . It appears clearly that June is the best sowing period .

Figure 19. Best Period of Sowing Maize FBC6 in Burkina Faso

n Results in BeninuThe best planting period for maize is around mid-April to mid-May from the south towards central Benin

and mid-May to mid-June from central Benin towards north Benin (Figure 20) .

uThe northern zones seemed to be more productive given the highest potential yields averaging 4 .6-5 .0 mt/ha compared the southern zone with limited yield of 3 .5-4 .1 mt/ha .

Yiel

d in

gra

in k

g/ha

-1


77

uNitrogen is the most limiting nutrient for maize production in the pilot zones . Potassium and phosphorus deficiencies are variables .

uSeveral site-specific fertilizer rates were simulated . The simulated options were screened to the least risky (high minimum and maximum yield across the diversity of soil and weather) and the most sustainable across the sites are: 120 kg N – 30 kg P – 80 kg K/ha in the north and 80 or 120 kg N – 30 kg P – 40 kg K/ha in the south .

uA validation process is ongoing around these recommendations in 13 villages across Benin with about 110 farmers .

Figure 20. Maize cultivar DMR-ESR-W rainfed potential yield per planting date in Benin (A = south to central Benin, B = central Benin and C = central towards north Benin)

n PublicationsuPaul Wilkens, Guillaume Ezui, Sansan Youl, Olivia Gist and Upendra Singh . 2010 . “Maize Yield Prediction in

Burkina Faso.” ASA, CSSA and SSSA annual meetings, Long Beach, CA, USA .

uTahibou Pare, Sansan Youl, Guillaume Ezui, Abdoulaye Mando and Jean Sogbedji . 2010 . « Système intégré de recommandation d’engrais au Burkina Faso » . Presented at the Forum National sur la Recherche Scientifique et de l’Innovation Technologique (FRSIT), December 2010, Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso .

uSansan Youl, Guillaume Ezui, Tahibou Pare, Abdoulaye Mando, Jean M . Sogbedji, Paul Wilkens, Upendra Singh and Olivia Gist . 2010 . « Mise à jour de Recommandations d’Engrais pour la Production du Maïs au Burkina Faso » . Presented at the Forum National sur la Research Scientifique et de l’Innovation Technologique (FRSIT), December 2010, Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso .

uGuillaume Ezui, Attanda M . Igué, Patrice Attiogbe, Abdoulaye Mando, Jean M . Sogbedji, Tahibou Pare, Sansan Youl, Paul Wilkens, Upendra Singh and Olivia Gist . 2011 . « Mise à jour de Recommandations d’Engrais pour la Production du Maïs en Afrique de l’Ouest : Cas du Bénin » . IFDC, Lomé, Togo .

n Conclusions and PerspectivesThe fertilizer recommendation activities implemented in Benin and Burkina Faso helped to develop crop and nutrient management options for these countries . Both approaches were very useful . The best planting periods for maize and other crops were defined for each agro-ecological zone and site-specific fertilizer

78


combinations were formulated . As required before dissemination, the best options simulated are being evaluated through validation trials in farmers’ fields and on-station .

n Objectives and MethodologyCalibrate QUEFTS model for cassava production and develop site-specific fertilizer recommendations for cassava production in West Africa .

The study was conducted in three countries: Benin, Ghana and Togo . It covered different agro-ecological zones: the Coastal Savanna Zone (southern Togo and southern Benin); the Guinea Savanna Zone (Kumasi and central Benin) and the Northern Guinea Savanna Zone (Tamale in Ghana and northern Benin) .

It was composed of five phases:

uA diagnostic phase consisting of determining the most limiting nutrients for cassava production on selected soils per agro-ecology in West Africa (2007-2009) .

uA model calibration phase based on data collected during the diagnostic phase (2008-2009) .

uA fertilizer recommendation phase in which the calibrated model was used to develop site-specific fertilizer rates for cassava production (2009-2010) .

uA validation phase that consisted of evaluating fertilizer rates recommended in farmers’ fields (2010-2012) .

uA dissemination/diffusion phase began during the second year of validation (2011-2013) .

The QUEFTS was the main decision support tool (DST) used in this work to develop site-specific N, P and K fertilizer rates for West African agro-ecologies . Data were also collected for DSSAT model calibration .

Improving Fertilizer Use Efficiency in Cassava-Based Cropping Systems in West Africa


79

pAfarmeropensasachetofmineralfertilizerforhercassavacrop.

n Fertilizer Rates Formulation and ValidationThe indigenous nutrient supply and internal efficiency parameters were used by the QUEFTS model to formulate N-P-K rates for cassava production in Benin, Ghana and Togo (Table 10) . These rates were evaluated through validation trials (2010 and 2011) in farmers’ fields and on-station . Most of the cassava cultivars tested are of at least 10-12 months cropping duration . The results of this experiment will be used to fine-tune the model calibration and validate the recommendations .

Table 10. Targeted Tuber Yields and Fertilizer Rates Combinations in Ghana and Togo

Zones Number of Villages/ Producers

Crop/Cropping System

Fertilizer Rates (kg/ha)

Target Yield (mt/ha)

GHANA

Tamale (Gbalahi, Tingoli and Savelugu) 3/20 Sole Cassava

1. N50-K80 6.0

2. N70-P15-K105 6.5

3. N85-P15-K130 7.0

Kumasi (Agona and Ajameso) 2/20 Sole Cassava1. N90-P68-K70 12.0

2. N115-P88-K107 13.0

TOGO

Region Maritime (Davié, Sévé-kpota, Sekponakope and Gbave) 4/12

Sole Cassava1. N40-P20-K65 13.2

2. N60-P25-K120 15.0

Maize-Cassava 3. N65-P26-K1304. N110-P35-K125

11.513.8

Total 14/122

80


pAgroupworksheetontheappropriateuseofmineralfertilizers.

The results of the validation process in Togo are presented in Table 11 . They show that the simulated fertilizer rates by the calibrated QUEFTS model performed very well in most pilot sites . Cassava responses matched well with the simulated target yields in most sites . The model over-estimated the target yields on Sévékpota white soils (sandy soils) due to leaching . Model predication could be used except in very sandy soils .

Table 11. Validation Results from the Coastal Savannah Zone of Togo

Site

Pure Cassava Cassava-Maize Intercropping

Fertilizer Rates DM Tuber (mt/ha) Fertilizer Rates DM Tuber (mt/ha)

N P K Target Measured N P K Target Measured

Davié Tekpo 40 20 65 13.2 12.4 65 26 130 11.5 12.2

60 25 120 15.0 19.9 110 35 125 13.8 15.7

Gbavé 40 20 65 13.2 14.0 65 26 130 11.5 11.6

60 25 120 15.0 17.2 110 35 125 13.8 13.4

Sekponakopé 40 20 65 13.2 13.8 65 26 130 11.5 12.0

60 25 120 15.0 18.4 110 35 125 13.8 15.9

Sévé-kpota 40 20 65 13.2 12.6 65 26 130 11.5 12.5

Dark Soil 60 25 120 15.0 15.4 110 35 125 13.8 13.0

Sévé-kpota 40 20 65 13.2 10.5 65 26 130 11.5 10.1

Red Soil 60 25 120 15.0 12.8 110 35 125 13.8 13.8

Sévé-kpota 40 20 65 13.2 10.5 65 26 130 11.5 10.1

White soil 60 25 120 15.0 12.8 110 35 125 13.8 13.8

n Dissemination ProcessThe dissemination process has been fully implemented only in Togo . The validated fertilizer rates were used to install demonstration plots in farmers’ group fields in selected villages (12/zone) in the Plateau and Maritime Zones of Togo . Participatory learning modules on fertilizers, nutrient deficiency identification, soil fertility indicators and crop performance indicators were conducted around these demonstration plots to facilitate the adoption of fertilizer use and the recommended rates . Farmers’ field days and exchange visits involving neighboring villagers and diverse stakeholders (including agro-dealers) were also used to reach a large number of farmers .

n Fertilizer Recommendations for Cocoa

Activities

uAssessment of inherent fertility of soils under cocoa cultivation in the different agro-ecologies .

uAssessment of cocoa farmers’ knowledge and practices of soil fertility management .


81

uFormulation of site-specific fertilizer for the major cocoa soils using the ‘Diagnostic-Sol’ (DS), software, followed by validation of improved formulae in farmers’ conditions .

uTesting of two sources of phosphate rock on acidic cocoa soils in the western region of Ghana .

Results

uAll cocoa soils in Ghana are deficient in P and K with low-exchange capacity . Soils in the western region are the most acidic and depleted of base cations (K, Ca and Mg) . Zinc levels in soils might limit productivity of cocoa while iron and manganese could induce toxicity to the cocoa .

uCocoa farmers in Ghana do not have adequate knowledge of soil fertility management and other cocoa yield-enhancing production practices .

uPreliminary yield data of the 2010 season (Table 12) showed that DS-formulated site-specific fertilizer performed better than all blanket fertilizers in western soils . The value:cost ratio (VCR) and beneficiary margin resulting from applying the DS formulas on a per-hectare basis were respectively 3 .2 and 443 Ghana Cedis against blanket Asaase Wura and 1 .6 and 118 Ghana Cedis against Cocofeed .

Table 12. Fertilizer Effect on Cocoa Yield (kg ha-1) Within Major Soil Group and Region Combinations

Treatments Acrisols Ashanti Acrisols Western Ferralsols Western Nitisols

T1 (control no fertilizer) 632 607 856 702

T2 (Asaase Wura) 696 957 1,130 815

T3 (Cocofeed) 892 824 1,332 838

T4 (Asaase Wura +20 kg N ha-1) 796 755 1,158 809

T5 (Asaase Wura + 40 kg N ha-1) 820 856 1,371 1,020

T6 (Plot-specific DS) 801 1,094 1,557 821

T7 (Mean regional DS) 958 894 1,581 917

Mean 799 855 1,283 846

n Conclusions and PerspectivesBased on these preliminary results, cocoa fertilizer formulas in the western cocoa regions of Ghana should be revised according to the DS formulation to include more CaO, K2O and MgO in addition to the region-wide deficiency of phosphate .

82


Support to CATALIST Project

n BackgroundPrior to implementation of the Catalyze Accelerated Agricultural Intensification for Social and Environmental Stability (CATALIST) project in the Great Lakes Region of Central Africa and subsequent SAADA B activities, IFDC’s engagement in East and Southern Africa focused on development and strengthening of agricultural input markets . In designing the CATALIST project, IFDC built on these activities, but more importantly incorporated the ISFM and CASE solutions developed in West Africa during the preceding two decades . Following approval of the CATALIST project, IFDC sought to expand the proven concepts for agricultural advancement developed in West Africa to the Great Lakes Region utilizing SAADA B funding (as agreed to by DGIS) .

In CATALIST, the proven concepts were implemented through a three-pronged approach including private and public sector capacity building, promotion of proven technologies and input and output market development . This approach recognized that sustainable agricultural intensification and accompanying economic development are dependent on widespread adoption of improved technologies at the farm level that result in consistent production of quality surpluses . In turn, aggressive market-oriented agribusinesses are needed to supply the agro-inputs associated with the improved technologies and to absorb and add value to surplus crop production .

n Integrated Soil Fertility ManagementExperts from IFDC in West Africa trained over 75 project and partner agronomists in the importance of ISFM for sustainable agricultural intensification . As part of the training, all agronomists were exposed to the principles and tools required for designing participatory ISFM demonstrations that incorporated local resources and knowledge . In addition, they were instructed in planning, monitoring and results evaluation . Evaluation


83

pAnexampleofextensionmaterialfocusedonISFMtechnologies.

of the initial training sessions indicated a need to improve training methods and to increase awareness on requirements for conducting a successful training program . Twenty selected technical staff members of CATALIST and its sister project (SEW) were trained in adult training methods and techniques during a four-day workshop . As a result of this intervention, the quality of project trainings and workshops improved, particularly in terms of earlier and better preparation, clearer objectives and M&E . Follow-up evaluations of the trained agronomists confirmed the need for training materials in ‘layman’s terms’ and in several languages . SAADA B funding was used to transpose the ISFM training modules and technical notes to laymen’s language prior to translation into local languages (including Swahili) and distribution to producers, farmers and extension services . Over 20 technical documents and booklets and brochures were available for distribution in several languages by the end of SAADA B funding . The technical documents and reference materials focus on the science supporting ISFM technologies, while the crop brochures provide recommendations for increased productivity based on the use of appropriate agro-inputs . The technical documents were also distributed to regional academic centers (high schools and universities) as part of CATALIST efforts to raise awareness about the role of ISFM in agricultural intensification . During 2010, partner agronomists involved in the training were directly or indirectly responsible for the delivery of extension services to over 110,000 farmers that CATALIST sought to influence .

n UDP Activities in the CATALIST RegionFollowing a CATALIST-sponsored study tour to acquaint public and private sector CATALIST stakeholders with the evolution of UDP use in Bangladesh, a SAADA B-funded training program laid the foundation for trials to be initiated in the Ruzizi Plain beginning with the 2010 Season B . The training program consisted of two components . The first three days focused on the production of urea briquettes from prilled urea and maintenance and operation of the four village-level briquetting machines previously imported by CATALIST . Fourteen participants (three from Burundi, six from DRC and five from Rwanda) were exposed to information on the design and engineering system of the briquette machine and the adjustments available to produce a desirable product . The information session was followed by a practicum in which participants operated and adjusted the briquette production machine to maintain the finished briquettes’ physical integrity and to produce briquettes of varying sizes to coincide with required N application rates . The second phase of the workshop (two days) addressed agronomic aspects of the UDP technologies . Conditions necessary for successful use and adoption of the technology and factors affecting the benefits:costs associated with its use were presented in detail to 29 participants representing agronomists from CATALIST and its partner organizations . Results from the 2010-2011 trials indicate that increased yields (20-25 percent) coupled with less nitrogen fertilizer use (25 percent less) are possible with traditional and CATALIST-introduced improved rice varieties, when fertilizer is properly applied and floodwater levels are maintained .

n Agro-Input Market DevelopmentA tool that has been successfully used by IFDC to support development of agro-input markets is the introduction of ‘smart subsidies’ via public-private partnerships . Under this scenario, the government provides subsidized vouchers for fertilizers and seeds to farmers who in turn redeem the vouchers for full value at private sector-owned agro-businesses . In turn, the government provides the agro-dealers with payment to cover the cost differential between the subsidized price and the full value of the voucher . Not only does this approach provide support to the private sector agro-input market, but it results in increased productivity at the farm level that will lead to increased sales (assuming markets for excess production are in place) .

In response to requests from the Government of Rwanda’s (GoR) Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI) for guidance on transitioning current government procurement of agro-inputs to the private sector

84


and for support to the GoR’s Crop Intensification Program, CATALIST recommended implementation of fertilizer auction and voucher programs . Activities were initiated in 2008 by MINAGRI with the auction of government-procured fertilizers to the private sector for distribution nationwide . During the same period, local service providers (contracted by MINAGRI) issued paper vouchers to farmers that could be redeemed by agro-dealers for government-subsidized fertilizers and seeds . The 2008 program produced significant increases in crop productivity, but several bottlenecks related to information gathering and timely voucher production (as well as repayment issues at the local level) were encountered . As a result of these experiences, MINAGRI and CATALIST began discussions in December 2009 on implementing a nation-wide electronic bar-coded voucher program . The program would be designed to incorporate the use of the unique barcode found on national identification cards held by Rwandese citizens . Numerous advantages are associated with the use of secure software-generated vouchers that contain this encrypted bar-code unique to each Rwandan farmer including: virtual elimination of fraud; ability to reconcile the voucher at each level (farmer, retailer, bank and MINAGRI); ability to track each and every voucher as it moves through the system; and the generation of a farmer database at MINAGRI that will support future farm programs . MINAGRI committed $250,000 for the purchase of equipment, while CATALIST used SAADA B funding to support software development and external consultancies for project implementation .


85

pStorefrontofanagro-dealerinBujumura,Burundi.

During the first quarter of 2010, CATALIST and MINAGRI staff held in-depth discussions to develop the design and strategy for implementation of a pilot bar-coded voucher program for wheat and maize . Once the design was finalized in April, additional discussions with other stakeholders (banks, agro-input traders and retailers, farmers, local service providers, etc .) ensued . SAADA B-supported activities centered on seconding a consultant at MINAGRI to liaison with responsible MINAGRI staff and stakeholder partners to obtain information for the software development required at each level . In addition, the consultant developed a detailed workplan with an associated timeline to ensure production and delivery of the vouchers in a timely manner . A successful test of the revised software designed for voucher production by the service providers was demonstrated to MINAGRI by the consultants on June 29th . Delays in decision-making (e .g ., value of the voucher, land area associated with each voucher, amount of fertilizer and seeds to be provided per voucher, etc .), information gathering, hardware installation, reliable power supplies and a decision to expand the program far beyond a pilot program resulted in late production of the vouchers and delivery to qualified farmers in Season A of 2011 . As with the introduction of any new technology there were a number of issues that required resolution . An external evaluator stated the following:

“Despite the change of the voucher system in comparison to season A last year, we encounter the same challenges, namely the lack of ability to print vouchers in time for the farmer to use when going to buy fertilizers . Beyond the technical issues in setting up the bar-coded voucher system and the problems encountered last year with the old system, it appears that the difficulties are due to a timing issue, i .e ., to a bad prediction as to the duration of each activity and the lack of planning and this, despite the proposals made in this direction to CATALIST and MINAGRI . In reality, the issue is an organizational rather than a technical one . The second observation is that local service providers that are the cornerstone of the system (as it was the case last season A) are not up to the task for which they subscribed a contract with MINAGRI (with the exception of IMBARAGA and TUBURA) .”

Many problems were corrected by season B (including expanded training of the local service providers by MINAGRI staff), but again equipment issues, late preparation and limited MINAGRI staff resources resulted in delays in voucher production and delivery in some districts . There also were major issues related to payment to MINAGRI by the farmers for the vouchers and by the agro-dealers for the fertilizers purchased via the auctions . Most problems (repayment being an exception) encountered could have been effectively dealt with through better planning and dedication of more personnel to the task . However, CATALIST, in its advisory role was limited in actions it could take . MINAGRI is currently engaged in distributing vouchers for Season A 2012 . While significant progress in terms of production and dissemination of the bar-coded vouchers has occurred, repayment continues to be a major issue . Currently, donor funds support the voucher program . In the absence of donor funding, sustainability of the ‘smart subsidies’ will not be feasible unless an exit strategy is defined and is fully supported by the GoR .

86


n Strengthening Capacity of Private Sector Producers’ and Traders’ Organizations

A series of ToT programs were conducted to facilitate training of national trainers in agro-input market development in each of the three countries (Burundi, Kivu Provinces of DRC and Rwanda) . Following the initial intensive training on agro-dealer development, the trainers were provided with local language training materials and an adapted module (reflective of current market conditions but based on the IFDC Training Module for Agro-Dealers) for testing in the field . Following a period of approximately one month, the trainers met for follow-up ToT training . The trainers were evaluated by their peers and their instructors on ways to improve their presentations and interactions with participants and advised of the most effective tools for adult training programs . Ultimately, these trainers provided agro-input market development training to over 1,000 agro-dealers across the project area .

n Facilitation of Value Chain Development and Capacity Building for Adoption of CASE

For sustainable agribusiness cluster development, the supply side of the equation must be matched by aggressive actions that promote demand, most notably development of output markets to absorb excess production .

In partnership with Agri-ProFocus, 20 participants from the region were originally selected for ToT on agribusiness concepts, methodologies and tools associated with the CASE solution developed by IFDC in West Africa . Criteria for selection included a proven ability to train others and previous participation in CATALIST training on value chain mechanisms and agribusiness development . Two expert agribusiness consultants designed a program for training ‘Agribusiness’ development trainers to aid in cluster development for CATALIST’s associated value chains . However, due to the limited experience of the trainees in agribusiness development, the objective of the program was revised to increase knowledge of agribusiness, value


87

pArefrigeratedtruckownedbytheagro-foodcompanyBurkinaPrimeurinBurkinaFaso.Onion-producingclustersinBurkinaFasoarelinkedtothecompanyinordertomarkettheirproduce.

chain development, CASE and to improve their overall training techniques . Following a five-day workshop, CATALIST and Agri-ProFocus staff mentored the trainers for six months prior to evaluating their performance . Based on performance, nine participants were identified for additional training in West Africa where they received intensive training on various components of the 1000s+ project . The training program highlighted lessons learned during implementation of 1000s+, the important role of the participatory approach, various means of accessing credit and the importance of introducing processing technologies at the local level . It also emphasized the necessity for M&E at the various levels of implementation (e .g ., project, country and agribusiness clusters) . One output of the training program was that CATALIST participants identified means to apply lessons learned and to enact appropriate, proven agribusiness development methodologies in each of the focus countries targeted by CATALIST . By the end of SAADA B, the nine trainers had received extension training and fully understood agribusiness development concepts (including value chains, CASE, etc .) that will contribute to the overall sustainability of CATALIST’s agricultural intensification and market development interventions .

n Gender Issues Affecting Agricultural Intensification in CATALIST Target Areas

With support from SAADA B, an IFDC gender specialist from West Africa conducted a consultancy to identify gender and HIV/AIDS constraints to agricultural intensification and to develop a strategy and a workplan to ameliorate the constraints . An exhaustive literature review, field interviews (conducted in the three countries using a questionnaire developed in collaboration with CATALIST staff) and detailed discussions with project staff were utilized to identify constraints . Based on this information, a strategy for addressing gender issues was identified in December 2009 . However, it was determined that CATALIST’s ability to positively influence HIV/AIDS constraints was limited and would not be pursued beyond awareness creation via a communications plan .

The initial study revealed similar gender disparities at the level of the farmers and agro-entrepreneurs in all countries, but in very different proportions . These inequalities are socio-cultural, economic

and political in nature . For example, most female farmers (like many smallholders irrespective of gender) are confronted by inequalities

in access to: land and particularly its control; education; training in production technologies; credit; agro-inputs; labor; and marketing .

In terms of marketing, male farmers often have more access to distant profitable markets, whereas women farmers primarily sell in markets closer to their home/farm where they receive less remuneration .

88


pARwandancouplesharethetasks ofpreparingtheirfieldusingISFMtechniques.

In the DRC, access to resources is difficult for all smallholder farmers, but gender inequalities exacerbate the obstacles to intensification and the development of agricultural enterprise . It is considered an obligation for a married woman to obtain permission from her husband before undertaking any activity . While women do the majority of the farming, they are generally forbidden to decide about agricultural production or to benefit from it . Indeed, because they do not control the land, they cannot invest in its intensification (e .g ., fertilization) . It is mainly men who control the revenue from production . Lastly, while in theory everyone has the right to participate in an association and/or to run for elected positions, women are less likely to fully participate due to their lower level of education and their lack of self-confidence . The result of this is that women’s concerns are generally not taken into account in decisions and policies for improving the profitability of the agricultural sector .

In response to the consultant’s recommendation that CATALIST (and its partner organizations) increase their capacity for gender analysis, implement specific training activities designed to improve women’s access to agro-inputs and support increased participation by women in agribusiness cluster development, CATALIST responded by:

u Promoting a gender policy that engaged as many women as possible in project activities, including training (e .g ., ISFM, improved farming technologies, small-scale mechanization, advocacy, etc .) and access to finance and markets .

u Training project staff to become more gender-sensitive .

u Monitoring men and women separately in project activities .

u Advising on the creation of a model farm for agricultural intensification that targeted women farmers .

n Market Information Systems (MIS)With SAADA B funding, CATALIST support to the development of regional MIS systems included:

u Work with East African Grain Council (EAGC) to build a bottom-up regional MIS .

u Use the Rwanda-based Esoko system as the basis for moving Burundi and DRC into MIS based on modern technology (SMS and Internet) .

u Integrate the existing regional agricultural MIS for the Regional Agricultural Trade Intelligence Network (RATIN) project into Esoko .

u Integrate DRC and Burundi into RATIN .

u Source USAID funding for DRC MIS activities .

u Provide assistance to IFDC’s AMITSA (input price MIS) .

These targets were ambitious and experienced significant delays in early 2010 due to the EAGC’s decision to replace the software firm providing service to RATIN . In order to facilitate completion of this activity, CATALIST organized a meeting between the new EAGC firm and MINAGRI (Rwanda) to determine if there were technical considerations that would prevent integration of Esoko and RATIN . Based on this knowledge, it was determined that DRC and Burundi could use the Esoko platform to transmit and receive price information . Additionally, this information allowed CATALIST, MINAGRI and VOXIVA to work together to develop the requirements for the second generation


89

of Esoko with expanded capabilities prior to issuing a tender in 2010 . SAADA B funding also supported the development and testing of the conceptual ideas for Esoko ‘Generation 3’, which will allow Esoko to become a vehicle for communication (but not a market) between agro-dealers and suppliers, and to allow food merchants to automatically search for food sellers . Endorsement of the development of a regional MIS was highlighted in the CATALIST and CEPGL MoU and follow-on joint activities .

n BackgroundThe primary objective of this activity has been to conduct a global review of issues related to utilization of human waste and other organic sources as fertilizer . These include: health-related issues; various processes and technologies used worldwide and their strengths, limitations and suitability to various conditions and levels; types of fertilizer products currently available; and recommendations on appropriate ways to process and use human waste for fertilizer production in developing countries . While it is clear that in the foreseeable future the majority of plant nutrition will come from inorganic fertilizers, recycling of nutrients and closing the nutrient loop will become increasingly important as fertilizer and energy resources dwindle and prices increase . Using organic fertilizer sources can increase sustainable agricultural productivity through the development and transfer of effective and environmentally sound plant nutrient technology .

After a thorough review of ongoing and planned initiatives in the region, it was decided to join a pilot project in the Accra region led by Safi Sana . Safi Sana is a local and scalable business concept that is being developed by the Safi Sana Foundation and consortium partners . The concept links franchised sanitation services for urban slum dwellers (collection and transport), to the centralized production of waste flows and sale of valuable end-products (energy and fertilizer products) . The driver of the concept – waste becomes a valuable source for new competitive products for the energy and agro-input market . At the same time, energy and organic fertilizer from waste become drivers for higher quality sanitary services .

Human-Urban Waste Recycling into Fertilizers

90


pApanoramicviewoftheconstructionsiteofthewasteprocessingfacility.

The Safi Sana consortium partners (Shell, Rabobank, DHV, Waterboard Regge & Dinkel and Aqua for All) jointly expressed the following opportunity statement: “To identify deployable environmentally and socially acceptable, scalable and replicable methods to collect, transport, process human waste from sanitation blocks serving the urban poor in densely populated areas of Accra in a commercial viable way by the end of 2011 .” This is the basis for the pilot that was launched in Ashaiman, Ghana, in 2009 . By the end of 2011 the consortium intends to have a proof of principle of the Safi Sana business model and therefore a basis for further rollout . Safi Sana will start a sub-pilot that focuses on a proof of principle for an alternative fertilizer product (Figure 21) .

Figure 21. Safi Sana System and Business Model


91

pUndergroundtanksholdthewasteproducts.

The pilot focuses on three main areas of the model, those being:

uFranchising of communal service blocks .

uWaste collection and processing .

uEnergy and fertilizer production and marketing .

IFDC became a partner and co-funder in this pilot project which is related to the production of an alternative fertilizer in combination with a sustainable business model . The activities of IFDC focused on the following aspects:

uConducting an inventory of potential waste sources in the Ashaiman, Accra and Tema areas for inclusion in the biogas/composting treatment process .

uAnalysis of the fertilizer market and identification of potential uses of organic fertilizer products in Ghana .

uCrop testing of organic fertilizers .

uParticipation in the formulation of a bankable business plan .

n Activities and ResultsuA pilot and operational set up was installed at the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) site

at Ashaiman . This includes two communal blocks for human excreta collection; two digesters for waste mixture digestion; and two collectors of effluents coming from the digesters . Biogas produced from waste digestion was monitored and chemical composition of effluent coming from digesters was evaluated . Technical biogas potential and optimized waste input for full-scale bio-digester operation was determined .

uThree market studies were initiated: one to inventory potential sources of organic wastes to be included in the biogas/fertilizer production system; another to assess the potential of the organic fertilizer to meet farmers’ needs for crops; and another to evaluate energy demand/options in and around Ashaiman .

Results of the various studies will guide biogas production and formulation of human excreta-derived fertilizer . Testing of fertilizer products will ensue to recommend application rates that would optimize crop growth and yield . n

92


pASafiSanarepresentativedescribestheongoingconstructionactivity.

u Yayrali,aseven-memberwomen’scooperativeinTogo,purchasedthisboilertoprocesssoybeanstomakesoymilk.

SAADA CBackground

The objective of the SAADA C component was formulated as ‘deepening IFDC’s knowledge base on interactions between agricultural intensification and issues such as HIV/AIDS, gender, biodiversity and nature conservation and conflicts .’

It was expected that as a result of SAADA C, IFDC staff members would be more capable, more knowledgeable and better able to engage in a wider debate on the role and modalities of agricultural intensification, taking into account those particular issues .

The activities in SAADA C focused on the following components:

u Addressing HIV/AIDS in agricultural development in Africa .

u Reviewing gender issues in IFDC programs and projects .

u Supporting the Ghana School Feeding Program .

u Exploring options to work in post-conflict states .

u Improving methodology development in Natural Resources Management (gradually was integrated with the NRM activities in SAADA B) .

This report covers from January 1, 2006, to April 30, 2011 . It includes observations and conclusions from the external evaluation of the project conducted by the Berenschot consultancy and the Agricultural University of Wageningen in 2010, under the overall supervision of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs .

94


pRwandanfarmersonaCATALISTlearningtourinTogovisitHEZOYU,asoybeanprocessingwomen’sgroup.

Key AccomplishmentsuSAADA C funded the development of methodologies, strategies and trainings to integrate gender aspects

into SAADA which resulted in:

� A tool to improve gender inclusion in value chains via the SAADA A program .

� Increased IFDC staff members’ knowledge of gender issues .

uThe issue of HIV/AIDS has become an integral part of the SAADA A program .

uIFDC has been able to link the issue of HIV/AIDS with its own core activities (with a focus primarily on the nutritional needs of those with HIV and/or AIDS) .

uThe overall knowledge of IFDC staff about HIV/AIDS issues has increased .

uA conceptual framework for IFDC’s work in the field of natural resource management has been formulated, with the focus to disseminate this knowledge to partners .

uSupport has been provided to the Ghana School Feeding Program Secretariat and regional actors in linking agricultural clusters to the feeding program .

uExploratory studies were implemented in Sierra Leone and Liberia regarding the improvement of agro-input markets . This resulted in IFDC’s participation in a five-year agricultural development project in Liberia .

Activities

n Addressing HIV/AIDS in Agricultural Development in Africa

In 2007 a detailed plan of action to ensure mainstreaming of HIV/AIDS issues in IFDC work was formulated . Beginning in 2008 that action plan was integrated into efforts to improve technical skills among staff on the HIV/AIDS-agriculture linkage and increasing awareness among staff members about HIV/AIDS issues and resources .

A literature review on HIV/AIDS and agriculture was conducted and surveys implemented in Burundi, DRC and Rwanda . Those led to the following key results:

uAlthough in East Africa the rate of HIV infection seems to have stabilized (and is even declining in some areas), the situation is getting worse in rural areas where the majority of agricultural production activities take place . This is particularly true in Burundi (an increase in HIV infection among youth from 2 .2 percent in 2002 to 2 .9 percent in 2009) and in DRC (4 .4 percent in North Kivu and 7 .2 percent in South Kivu) .

uAgriculture is heavily affected by HIV/AIDS through increased loss of production, sale of assets required for production, reduction in the agricultural workforce, reduced size of cultivated fields and lower adoption rates for new agricultural technologies .

uHowever, agriculture remains a relatively secure source of income for affected households .

uPoverty and lack of status expose women to risky behavior, leading to increased chances of HIV/AIDS infection .


95

uIncreases in agricultural production and the resulting reduction in poverty is one of the best strategies to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS .

uInformation and knowledge about HIV/AIDS remains low among CATALIST target groups (with the worst situation in North Kivu) .

uRadio remains the most effective channel of communication to disseminate information . Other sources of information for rural households are churches, health centers, professional associations and workshops .

Based on those results, an HIV/AIDS communications plan was developed for the CATALIST project . Information about HIV/AIDS was incorporated onto the CATALIST website .

n Gender Issues in IFDC Programs and Projects The specific gender activities conducted were concentrated in the SAADA A component and in support to the CATALIST project (see SAADA B) .

A tool was developed to include gender aspects in agribusiness cluster formation . This tool was used in training and ToT activities in the SAADA A component .

At the request of CATALIST staff, a gender study was implemented and subsequently, a strategy and an action plan to address identified constraints in the intervention areas of the project were prepared . The study included more than 650 respondents (52 .93 percent of respondents were men and 47 .07 percent were women ) comprised of producers, agro-dealers, traders, food processors, transporters and MFI and NGO staff working in the agricultural development sector . Areas covered were Bujumbura, Cibitoke, Kayanza, Makamba, Muramya and Ngozi in Burundi; Beni, Lubero and Masisi-Rutsuru in North Kivu and Kabare, Uvira and Walungu in South Kivu in DRC; and Gicumbi, Musanze, Kamonyi, Nyagatare and Rusizi in Rwanda . Data collection was done through desk review, surveys, individual interviews and focus groups and analysis was performed

using qualitative and quantitative methods .

Results showed that gender inequalities exist in the three countries at various levels and with diverse significance . Due primarily to government policies (or the lack of them) access to land seems easier for Rwandan women compared to their counterparts in Burundi and DRC . But inequalities persist in terms of control because of socio-cultural constraints and lack of adequate information . In DRC, both access and control remain a problem for women, due to socio-cultural and economic constraints .

96


t StudentsenjoylunchataschoolparticipatingintheGhanaSchoolFeeding Program.

In addition to land-related issues, results also showed inequalities in access to education and training as well as to other productive resources . An immediate consequence is that women are restricted to a lower status, are more often obliged to perform professional activities at lower wages and are deprived of opportunities that can help them achieve the financial security which will eventually allow them to invest in agricultural intensification or agribusiness . These circumstances are caused by a combination of inter-related factors that impede participation and success by women in agricultural intensification and business: lack of access to education for girls/women; lack of access and control over land, finance and decision; early marriage; traditional perceptions that women have fewer abilities to compete with men in trade and management; lack of information regarding rights they are entitled to; lack of leadership and role models; and poor self-esteem among women .

Based on knowledge of specific constraints in each country and of opportunities that exist, a strategy and an action plan were designed which focus on:

uBuilding the capacity of technical staff and facilitators in gender analysis and mainstreaming in action planning and implementation .

uImproving access of women to and greater control over resources .

uReinforcing women’s self-esteem and leadership .

uTaking gender into account during the selection of value chains and throughout the cycle .

n Support Ghana School Feeding Program A series of activities were undertaken to link the agribusiness clusters developed in the SAADA A component of the project to the Ghana School Feeding Program (GSFP) . Overall, the results have been disappointing, due primarily to challenges faced in the implementation of the GSFP .

n Explore Options to Work in Post-Conflict StatesContacts were established and missions were implemented to Sierra Leone and Liberia to explore options to expand the agribusiness cluster approach to these countries, which are in the process of developing their agricultural sectors after a long period of conflicts and instability . This has resulted in a USAID-funded agricultural support program in Liberia . No concrete activities have been realized yet in Sierra Leone .

n Methodology Development in Natural Resources Management

A conceptual framework was developed for IFDC’s work in the field of natural resource management with a focus on disseminating this knowledge to partners . Implementation of activities focused on Northern Ghana – calibrating the QUEFTS model for fertilizer application decision-making and dissemination of ISFM options for maize and rice systems in Ghana .


97

Annexes

98

SAADA Project Overview

Annex 1. Partnership Brief with WFPn IFDC Plays a Critical Role in Linking Smallholder Farmers with

the World Food Programme in Burkina Faso

ObjectiveThrough its From Thousands to Millions (1000s+, 2006-2010) and Accelerating Agribusiness in Africa-Bridge (AAA-Bridge, 2011) projects funded by the Dutch government, IFDC sought to improve rural livelihoods and food security in Sub-Saharan Africa . IFDC facilitated agribusiness partnerships, using CASE at the local level to develop business opportunities and build dynamic agribusiness clusters involving smallholder farmers, agro-dealers, agro-food companies, financial institutions, traders and business service providers . In Burkina Faso, IFDC supported smallholder producers, including staple food farmers, to access profitable and sustainable

markets .

With the Purchase for Progress (P4P) initiative, the World Food Programme (WFP) is using its purchasing power and its expertise in logistics and food quality to offer smallholder farmers opportunities to access agricultural markets, to become competitive players in those markets and thus to improve their lives . WFP usually buys food through large competitive tenders . With P4P, WFP is testing new procurement approaches more suited to smallholder farmers and buys directly from FBOs through direct and forward contracts . In Burkina Faso, the program targets 31,000 smallholder farmers and 16,800 mt of sorghum, maize and cowpeas, over a five-year period (2009-2013) . The program’s technical and administrative costs are funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and food purchase operations are funded by donations .

In order to supply WFP with grains and cowpeas, local farmers have to meet its criteria of price, quality and quantity . This remains a challenge in Burkina Faso, where smallholders suffer from very low productivity and thus produce mainly for their household’s subsistence, with no surpluses for markets . Few of the 30,000 rural organizations have the marketing capacity to assist their farmer members transition to farming as a

Provision of white sorghumWhite sorghum is highly appreciated by local consumers. It is produced primarily by the Samo people in the Nayala province.

In 2010/11 WFP contracted the UnionProvincialedesProfessionnelsAgricolesduNayala (UPPA/N) to supply 500 mt of white sorghum. UPPA/N represents over 4,600 smallholders, most of whom were reluctant to produce sorghum for markets (because a tradition of the Samo people is that white sorghum is stored for many years as a prestige commodity and is entirely consumed by households; storing white sorghum is a sign of prosperity).

With IFDC, WFP and FEPAB’s assistance, UPPA/N was able to change behaviors of its members and initiated the development of a white sorghum agribusiness cluster. Linkages with a local business development service provider and a financial institution led to the negotiation of two working capital loans of 30 million FCFA and 49 million FCFA. It resulted in the supply of 680 mt of white sorghum to the WFP.


99

business, in aggregating their surpluses, meeting market demand for quantity and quality, and/or adhering to contractual agreements .

An IFDC objective is to assist Burkinabe farmers – through their organizations – in supplying WFP with grains and cowpeas . The farmers can then benefit from a reliable market, with fair prices for their crops and a greater incentive to invest in their production, thus contributing to the country’s food security .

Achieving the ObjectiveIn November 2009, IFDC and WFP’s P4P formalized their partnership to help smallholders in Burkina Faso’s Nayala Province produce sorghum, with the objective to expand the support to other areas and commodities (maize and cowpeas) for the WFP market . Both organizations agreed to share technical competencies, networks, human and financial resources to achieve this objective . More specifically, IFDC offered its expertise in accessing agro-inputs and credit, enhancing production through the promotion of best practices, supporting entrepreneurship and developing local clusters that are market-oriented . P4P offered a reliable market, as well as its resources to build the capacity of stakeholders in post-harvest handling, storage, quality standards, logistics and contractual negotiations .

For the first purchase test during the 2009/10 cropping season, IFDC advised WFP to link up with a well-organized national farmer apex body rather than with small local farmer organizations . IFDC identified the Fédération des Professionnels Agricoles du Burkina Faso (FEPAB) as a potential partner and facilitated its linkage with WFP . FEPAB received support from IFDC and P4P to supply 312 mt of white sorghum and 604 mt of maize, for a total contract amount of 151,400,000 FCFA . In total, 853 smallholder farmers were involved in this initiative .

100


pAcapitalizationworkshopwasorganizedwiththeassistanceofICRA.

During the 2010/11 cropping season, IFDC and FEPAB helped WFP develop direct contracts with the best-performing farmer unions that were member of FEPAB . Using CASE, IFDC supported these unions to develop agribusiness action plans targeting the supply of the WFP market . The plans included activities to: 1) increase yields through better access to agro-inputs and the implementation of best production practices; 2) establish a program to aggregate surpluses at harvest; 3) ensure the production met the quality standards requested by WFP (impurity content, humidity rate, maturity of grains, etc .); and 4) access credit for handling and transporting the crops produced . Capacity building of farmers was a key element of IFDC/WFP’s assistance (ToT in best production practices, technical training of district-level teams in logistics planning and training in operating accounts) . Linkages among cluster stakeholders were also developed, including with business support services and financial institutions . Throughout the process, all partnership stakeholders were flexible enough to learn from their experiences and adapt their procedures and operations . As a result, FBOs were able to supply WFP with 680 mt of white sorghum and 933 mt of maize . On average, incomes of the 1,760 smallholders involved increased by 117 percent for sorghum and by 217 percent for maize (when compared to the 2008/2009 cropping season) .

ChallengesIFDC and WFP faced many challenges, including: the poor technical and marketing capacity of smallholders; weak local FBOs that were unable to assist their members and organize the aggregation of surpluses; a lack of good storage facilities; poor road infrastructures; farmers’ limited access to credit to produce, store and market significant quantities of grains; and farmers’ lack of understanding and respect of contractual agreements .

MilestonesSupplying over 1,600 mt of staple food is an important milestone for smallholders, P4P and 1000s+/AAA-Bridge in achieving the objectives of food security and rural livelihood improvement in Burkina Faso . Further success will be attained by going to scale . A medium-term objective is the expansion of the P4P initiative to additional local FBOs, and the integration of new cluster stakeholders that could offer specific assistance, mainly in logistics and financing .

Expected OutcomesIt is envisioned that in the wake of WFP purchasing in a more smallholder-friendly way, other buyers of staple commodities (including governments and the private sector), will also increasingly buy from smallholders . FBOs are expected to develop solid linkages with local entrepreneurs and other partners to be able to ensure a professional supply of local, national and regional markets . n


101

Annex 2. Examples of Significant Outcomes and Impacts

Nuts about Tiger NutsMoumine lives in the Sikasso region of southern Mali, the only region of the country where tiger nuts are cultivated . Moumine exports tiger nuts to clients in Spain, who process tiger nuts into orchata, a sweet drink .

As tiger nut production diminishes in Spain, Moumine’s clients seek large quantities of tiger nuts delivered free of sand . In order to deliver the required quantity and quality, Moumine contacted Jekafo, a cooperative union of 24 tiger nut producers . Cooperatives like Jekafo have been established with the support of Grefa, a service provider supported by the 1000s+ project .

Moumine convinced the tiger nut producers that he would pay a better price for better quality, so they would put much more time into sorting out and calibrating their produce. To boost production they dedicated more land area to tiger nut cultivation and used mineral fertilizer, an expensive input which they had to purchase on credit.Moumine and Jekafo’s managers negotiated a substantial loan with the local bank director . This allowed the cooperative to provide fertilizers for its members through a contract negotiated with an input provider . Under the terms of the loan, Jekafo members must repay it in tiger nuts, including interest, following the harvest . The tiger nuts were collected by Moumine who, in turn, paid back the bank loan in cash . The cooperative’s contracts were fulfilled – one with the bank, the other with Moumine . The cooperative members were extremely satisfied with this deal .

102


t CleaninganddryingmaizeforshipmenttotheWorldFoodProgram(WFP).

And so was Moumine, because he was able to sell the quantities he had foreseen to the Spanish buyers and he too made a profit on the transaction .

However, Moumine became greedy and too self-interested . Hoping that the tiger nut producers would have no knowledge of prices and demand on the international market, he offered them a lower price than the one stipulated in his contract, so that he could reap a higher profit . He argued with the members of Jekafo that he could not pay a higher price because his Spanish clients would not buy the produce if the price was too high . The negotiations between him and Jekafo stagnated . The cooperative was not willing to sell below the contract price, because they would then have difficulty in repaying their loan from the bank . However, the Union could not make Moumine change his mind and raise the price .

After discussing the problem with Jekafo and other service providers and looking for solutions to sell their stock, the copperative received a very important tip – the name and email address of Xavier Santos, one of Moumine’s major clients in Spain .

Jekafo contacted Santos to ascertain his interest in buying their stock directly . Santos, who had been told by Moumine that the amount of Malian tiger nuts would be limited, then knew that this claim was untrue . Wanting to pressure Moumine, his e-mail reply to the cooperative requested that it contact Moumine, his normal supplier . Santos intentionally copied Moumine on the email, sending him a signal that Santos knew about the attempts to cheat his suppliers .

Moumine worried that he might lose Santos and others as customers . He was also afraid that the cooperative might sell directly to Santos and/or other Spanish tiger nut importers, and he immediately proposed a higher purchase price for the tiger nuts . The cooperative accepted this price, and the deal was made, allowing all contracts to be granted .

A bad situation was resolved and generated a positive outcome for all members of the tiger nut value chain – Moumine, the bank, the fertilizer dealer, the tiger nut importers and the producers and their cooperative .

Jekafo repaid the loan and was able to obtain a new loan because the bank was then confident it would be repaid . The fertilizer dealer was also paid and agreed to pre-finance fertilizer purchases for next season .

Also the producers are better off . Thanks to their cooperative – Jekafo – they received a higher price for their produce and obtained fertilizer on credit and on time . They decided to produce a larger tiger nut crop and to sell more to the cooperative in the next season .

Moumine did not lose his client . But he also understood the power of information and that he had to deal fairly with the other stakeholders of the tiger nut value chain – he could not be the only one to decide on prices! Now that the cooperative and the producers are better informed about international markets and prices, they can more successfully negotiate prices . n


103

Annex 3. Acronyms & Abbreviations1000s+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From Thousands to Millions2SCALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Towards Sustainable Clusters in Agribusiness through Learning in EntrepreneurshipAGRODIA . . . . . . . . . . . Association des Grossistes et Détaillants d’Intrants Agricoles du Burkina FasoAISSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agricultural Intensification in Sub-Saharan AfricaAMEDD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Association Malienne d’ Eveil au Développement DurableAMITSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agricultural Input Market Information and Transparency SystemANPAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Association Nationale des Producteurs Avicoles du TogoAU-NEPAD . . . . . . . . . African Union-New Partnership for Africa’s DevelopmentBoP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . base-of-the-pyramidBRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Banque Régionale de SolidaritéBSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Business Support ServicesCAADP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development ProgrammeCASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Competitive Agricultural Systems and EnterprisesCATALIST . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalyze Accelerated Agricultural Intensification for Social and Environmental StabilityCPPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . crop protection productsDEBPEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Développement Economique à la Base par des Pôles d’Entreprises AgricolesDERK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program for Rural Economic Development of the Koulikoro Region (Mali)DGIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directorate-General of International Cooperation (The Netherlands)DSSAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decision Support System for Agrotechnology TransferECOWAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economic Community of West African States

104


pAfarmermarksherevaluationoftheeffectsofdifferentISFMpracticesontheperformanceofhermaizecrop(notonlylookingatharvestandyieldbutalsoatcolorofleaves,heightoftheplant,etc.).

u Backcover:Womenseivingtigernutsfromthesoil,thefirststepinthecleaningprocess.

FBOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farmer-Based OrganizationsFSAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fertilizers and Sustainable Agricultural DevelopmentGIZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . German Technical Cooperationha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hectareICRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . International Center for development-oriented Research in AfricaIFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . International Fertilizer Industry AssociationIFDC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . International Fertilizer Development CenterINERA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L’Institut National de l’Environnement et de la Recherche Agronomique (Burkina Faso)INRAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Institut National de Recherche Agronomique du BéninISFM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integrated Soil Fertility ManagementMCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Millennium Challenge AccountM&E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . monitoring and evaluationMFI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . micro-finance institutionsMIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marketing Inputs RegionallyMIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Market Information SystemsMISTOWA . . . . . . . . . . Strengthening Regional Networks of Market Information

Systems and Traders Organizations in West AfricaMoU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .memorandum of understandingmt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .metric tonNAFEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Advisor to Farmer’s Economic InitiativesNCSTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Capacity Strengthening TeamsNEPAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Partnership for Africa’s DevelopmentNGO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Governmental OrganizationNSCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Steering CommitteesP4P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purchase for ProgressPCDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Programme Compétitivité et Diversification AgricolePO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Producers OrganizationPPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Private PartnershipRAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regional Advisory CommitteeROPPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Network of Farmers’ Organizations and Agricultural Producers of West AfricaSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Société AnonymeSAADA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strategic Alliance for Agricultural Development in AfricaSARI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Savannah Agricultural Research InstituteSFSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable AgricultureSMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Short Message ServiceToT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Training of TrainersUDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urea Deep PlacementUDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University for Development StudiesUEMOA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . West African Economic and Monetary Union USAID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United States Agency for International DevelopmentWFP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . World Food Programme


105

IFDC North and West Africa Divisionc/o IFDC Ghana3, Orphan Crescent, Labone PMB CT 284, CantonmentsAccra GHANATelephone: (233) 302 78 08 30 / 302 78 60 69; 302 77 08 38 / 76 67 97 (annex) Telefax: (233) 302 78 08 29E-Mail: ifdcghana@ifdc .org

IFDC HeadquartersP .O . Box 2040Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35662 USATelephone: +1 (256) 381-6600Fax: +1 (256) 381-7408E-Mail: general@ifdc .orgWebsite: www .ifdc .org

© IFDC 2012 . All rights reserved .

For additional information about IFDC and/or the SAADA project, visit www�ifdc�org�

saada project overview

Documents

agricultural development

africa saada project

s project

project management

catalist project

west africa

agricultural productivity

capacity development